This High Court quashed the charge sheet in a matrimonial dispute under Section 498(A) IPC due to lack of specific allegations against petitioners, especially since they lived separately and there was no material for criminal intimidation or abetment.
The charge sheet in C.C.No.24 of 2017 is quashed in so far as it concerns the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P. No. 23758 of 2019 and Crl.M.P. No. 12515 of 2019
1.Nattarayasamy
2.Sampoornam
3.Amasaveni ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (East), Coimbatore District.
2.A.Renuka ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records, quash the complaint
in C.C.No.24 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court,
Coimbatore in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned.
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr. V.Balamurugane For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent 2 : Mrs. A.Renuka Party in person.
O R D E R
The petition is to quash the charge sheet for the alleged offences under Section 498 (A), 406, 109 and Section 506 (i) of IPC.
2/8
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
2 nd
2nd respondent, they threatened her with dire consequences; that the 1st
accused had taken 15 sovereign of gold jewels and failed to return the same to the 2nd respondent.
3/8
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
threat. The observation of this Court in Noble Mohandass Vs. State,
4/8
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
reported in 1989 Cri.LJ 669, i s extracted below for better
understanding:
“7. ...... Further for being an offence under Section
506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. ....”
That apart, this Court finds that the 1st and 2nd petitioners are living separately. In the said circumstances, the proceedings against them is clearly an abuse of process of law.
abetted the 1st accused in committing the alleged acts of cruelty. There are absolutely no allegations as to what were the alleged acts of abetment committed by the 3rd petitioner, who is an unmarried sister of
the 1st accused. Admittedly, the 3rd petitioner also never lived with the
5/8
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
1st accused and the 2nd respondent. In the absence of specific allegation against the 3rd petitioner, the impugned proceedings against her is also an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court had time and again held that when relatives who are living far away are sought to be prosecuted under Section 498 A IPC, there must be a clear and specific allegation against them. However, in the instant case, this court finds that there are no such allegations against them and the impugned charge sheet as against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
25.04.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No kan
6/8
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
To
7/8
Crl.O.P.No.23758 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
kan
Crl.O.P.No. 23758 of 2019
25.04.2023
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet against petitioners for alleged cruelty and criminal intimidation lacks specific allegations regarding threats or abetment.
Whether proceedings against petitioners living separately or away from the matrimonial home amount to an abuse of process of law.
Whether the charge sheet attracts offences under Section 498(A), 406, 109 and 506(i) of IPC against the accused as alleged.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Noble Mohandass Vs. StateReferred¶37
Noble Mohandass Vs. State, reported in 1989 Cri.LJ 669 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Nattarayasamy
Sampoornam
Amasaveni
The State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (East), Coimbatore District
A.Renuka
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
