Disposed

B.Sangeetha v. State Rep.by

Madras HC28 Apr 2023CRL OP/9642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras entertained a petition for an FIR alteration. The court directed the police to consider the petitioner's claim that no valid marriage existed and to file an appropriate final report within two months before disposing of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's submission regarding the validity of the marriage and file an appropriate final report within two months.

B.Sangeetha Vs State Rep.by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9642 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.04.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.9642 of 2023

¶6

B.Sangeetha …Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Mylapore, Mylapore Police District. Crime No.9 of 2022 …Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue a direction to the first Respondent to alter the FIR under Sections 376, 493 and 496 of IPC instead of 498A and 417 IPC in the above Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of Respondent Police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Gokul Ram For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to issue a direction to

¶12

the first Respondent to alter the FIR under Sections 376, 493 and 496 of IPC instead of 498A and 417 IPC in the above Crime No.9 of 2022 on the

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.9642 of 2023

¶16

file of Respondent Police.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis

¶18

of the complaint given by the petitioner, FIR in Crime No.9 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC was registered. Now, the respondent Police filed an alteration report altering the offences under Sections 498(A) and 417 IPC. He further submitted that there was no valid or legal marriage taken place between the petitioner and the accused.

¶19

In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶20

submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the accused was registered. The investigation in this case is pending and appropriate final report will be filed.

¶21

In the light of the rival submissions of the learned counsel

¶22

appearing for the parties, especially the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no valid and legal marriage between the

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.9642 of 2023

¶26

petitioner and the accused, this Court directs the respondent to consider the submissions of the petitioner and file an appropriate final report, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶28

28.04.2023

¶29

mn Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

¶30

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,

¶31

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.9642 of 2023

¶35

¶36

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station Mylapore, Mylapore Police District.

¶37

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.9642 of 2023

¶39

28.04.2023

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

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

B.Sangeetha v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sangeetha 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

R.Chinnasamy Vs State Rep by

Rajesh Das .I.P.S Vs State Rep by

Rajesh Das Vs State Rep by

J.Gobu Vs The Superintendent of Police

P.Rajendiran Vs The Inspector of Police

Sivakumar Vs The State rep.by.