Mother and son accused in a cross-complaint arising from a family property dispute sought quashing of C.C.No.94 of 2018 under Section 482 CrPC, alleging the defacto complainant foisted a false case while her own complaint was closed as mistake of fact. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
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.3985 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.3985 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1941 & 1943 of 2022
... Petitioners
Vs.
.. Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No. 94 of 2018 trial on the file of learned Addl. Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Salem and quash the same.
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.3985 of 2022
For Petitioners : Mr.I.M.Siddartha Ramarajan For Respondents : Mr. S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 No appearance for R2
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the criminal case in C.C.No. 94 of 2018 on the file of learned Addl. Mahila
Court, (Magistrate Level), Salem.
of 2014 based on the complaint given by 2nd respondent for an offence under Sec.341, 274 B and 506(ii) of I.P.C. The petitioners are mother and son and the complaint lodged the defacto complainant is the brother's wife of 1st petitioner. Both 1st petitioner Chitra and 2nd respondent/defacto complainant Kavitha are advocates by profession. Already there was a civil dispute pending with regard to the family property.
2/6
Crl.O.P.No.3985 of 2022
3/6
Crl.O.P.No.3985 of 2022
C.C.No.94 of 2018 against petitioners as such is totally vexatious one and the same is liable to be quashed. To prove their contentions, the learned counsel produced the discharge summary of 1st petitioner, which would reveals that she was admitted in the hospital and taken treatment from 10.12.2014 to 13.12.2014 i.e. for 3 days. When she was admitted in hospital, her complaint was closed as mistake of fact, on the other hand, she was implicated in this case, it would clearly shows that it is a vexatious claim. Only out of vengeance, the complaint was filed. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings pertaining to the criminal case in C.C.No.94 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Addl. Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Salem is quashed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.01.2024
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order
4/6
Crl.O.P.No.3985 of 2022
rpp To
5/6
Crl.O.P.No.3985 of 2022
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
Crl.O.P.No.3985 of 2022
08.01.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.94 of 2018 against the petitioners were vexatious and liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Chitra
Elirasan
State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pallapatti Police Station, Salem City
G.M.Kavitha
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
