Dismissed

K.Selvi v. State Rep. by

Madras HC14 Feb 2023CRL OP/32336/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against petitioners (mother and first wife of accused). The Court held that specific allegations of assault and cruelty existed and investigation must continue.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed; investigation allowed to continue.

K.Selvi Vs State Rep. by — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶7

K.Selvi

¶8

G.Uma @ Poongodi

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai. Crime No.15 of 2019

¶12

G.Banu

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records and quash the further proceedings of the First Information Record in Crime No.15 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.K.A.Ravindran for R2 ***

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/7

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in

¶21

Crime No.15 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.

¶22

The petitioners are the accused 2 and 3. The 2^nd respondent, who is the defacto complainant, was married to the 1^st accused as his second wife. The 1^st petitioner is the mother of the 1^st accused and the 2^nd petitioner is the first wife of the 1^st accused. The defacto complainant has given a complaint by alleging that she had been ill-treated by the accused 1 to 3. On the said complaint, a case has been registered for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323 & 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the entire materials available on record.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the complaint are predominantly made against the 1^st accused and as

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶27

against the petitioners, there are certain vague allegations and generalized statements. The 2^nd petitioner had given consent to marry the 2^nd respondent/ defacto complainant for the 1^st accused as she could not deliver a child for him. In fact, it is the 2^nd respondent, who did not behave in a proper manner with the petitioners and in this regard, the 1^st accused had also sent a legal notice on 24.04.2019. Since the ingredients in the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence as against these petitioners, the FIR should be quashed against them.

¶28

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that at the threshold stage itself, it cannot be presumed that the allegations made against these petitioners cannot be substantiated. Even in the complaint, the 2^nd respondent had made specific allegations against the petitioners and hence, the investigation should be allowed to continue.

¶29

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the 1^st accused married the 2^nd respondent, since he did not have any child through his 1^st wife, who is the 2^nd petitioner herein. After having married the 2^nd respondent, all the accused had started to ill-treat her in various manner and

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/7

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶32

she has been driven out of the house. The 2^nd respondent had delivered a male baby and she is living along with her baby at her mother's house. Since the allegations are serious and she has stated that the petitioners had assaulted her and due to which, she sustained injuries, there are enough ingredients to make out cognizable offence against the petitioners as well.

¶33

The 1^st accused appears to have married the 2^nd respondent even

¶34

when his first marriage with the 2^nd petitioner is in subsistence. It is submitted that the 2^nd petitioner had given her consent for marrying the 2^nd respondent, since she did not have any child. After marrying the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st accused had chosen to live as a joint family with his mother and his first wife also. The family dimension chosen by the 1^st accused itself has got enough scope to create emotional anxiety in the mind of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has alleged that she was ill-treated by the mother and the first wife of her husband and they used to abuse her in filthy language and also assaulted her with kitchen utensils and in which she sustained injuries. The further allegation is that they would also instigate the 1^st accused to ill-treat her. Finally, the 2^nd respondent could not live at the house of the 1^st accused and she was driven out of the matrimonial home. In

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶37

this regard, the 2^nd respondent has given a complaint earlier to the All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai and during enquiry, the 1^st accused is said to have accepted to establish a separate family along with the 2^nd respondent. But, he did not visit her after she delivered a baby and now she is living alone with her baby in her mother's house.

¶38

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the predominant allegations made by the 2^nd respondent is only against the 1^st accused, the 2^nd respondent has got grievance in the way she was treated by the petitioners 1 & 2 also. In fact, she made specific allegation that she was assaulted with kitchen utensils by the petitioners and she was also threatened by them that they would not give her any food if she revealed the same to the 1^st accused. Such kind of treatment at any stretch of investigation cannot be considered as a symptom of a cordial relationship and that it did not have element of cruelty. Since the matter is at a threshold stage, it cannot be presumed now that even if the investigation is allowed to continue, no material can be available to substantiate the allegations made by the 2^nd respondent against the petitioners also. The interest of justice would be served only if a detailed investigation is done and the witnesses concerned are

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/7

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶41

enquired properly. In order to enable the same, I feel that the investigation should be allowed to continue. Since the petition is a premature one and there are sufficient allegations made against the petitioners also, I do not find that this is a fit for which powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised to quash the same.

¶42

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶43

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

14.02.2023

¶45

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order

¶46

Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No kmi

¶47

¶48

The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruvannamalai.

¶49

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Chennai-600 104.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/7

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶52

R.N.MANJULA, J

¶53

kmi

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.32336 of 2019 and Crl.MP.No.17803 of 2019

¶55

14.02.2023

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/7

K.Selvi v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Selvi v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Kalavathy Vs the State through

State Reb.by Chennai Vs Jbj City Developers Private Limited, Chennai

M/S.Saraswati Udyog India Limited Vs the Registrar of Companies

Alamelu Vs the State Rep.by

Gopinath Vs State by

P.Balasubramanian Vs State by Inspector of Police