Dismissed

Anusiya v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Jul 2024CRL OP(MD)/3873/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed to quash proceedings, holding that the petitioner approached the court while suppressing the fact that her earlier applications for discharge and revision had already been dismissed by the trial and Principal Sessions Judge.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed for suppressing the dismissal of prior applications.

Anusiya Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3873 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRL.O.P (MD) No.3873 of 2024 and CRL.M.P (MD) Nos.3073, 3074 and 6954 of 2024

¶7

Anusiya ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police AWPS Ramanad Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

2.M.Umamahesheswari

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.223 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as illegal as far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3873 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince For R1 : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R2 : Mr.Thirunavurkkarasu

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.223 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.

¶19

2.The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.223 of 2022, which is pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram. The first respondent police has filed a final report as against the first accused for the offence under Sections 417, 494, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and as against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 IPC.

¶20

3.This Court, while entertaining the main petition, has granted interim

¶21

stay in Crl.M.P(MD)No.3073 of 2024 and the defacto complainant has now

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3873 of 2024

¶25

filed an application in Crl.M.P(MD)No.6954 of 2024 seeking to vacate the interim stay. On the consent of both the parties, today the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been roped in as accused based on the vague statement that the first accused has informed the defacto complainant that he has married the petitioner after informing about the marriage solemnized between the second respondent and the first accused. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also pointed out that almost the entire prosecution case is relied on the hearsay evidence and without any evidence this case has been foisted. According to the petitioner, she is the victim, since without the knowledge of the first marriage between the second respondent and the first accused, she has married the first accused. However, the respondent police without ascertaining the fact whether the petitioner has married the first accused knowing the fact of the earlier subsisting marriage, has mechanically filed the final report.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3873 of 2024

¶30

5.The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto

¶31

complainant submits that the petitioner on the very same ground has filed an application before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by order, dated 10.07.2023. As against the same, the petitioner has also filed a revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2023, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and the same was also dismissed on 14.02.2024. Suppressing those materials, this criminal original petition has been filed and interim order has been obtained. He further submits that trial in C.C.No.223 of 2022 has already commenced and the witness P.W.1 was cross-examined and the investigation agency has also collected the birth certificate of the petitioner's child from the first accused, which is also relied by the prosecution in the trial.

¶32

6.This Court has considered the rival submissions made.

¶33

7.It appears that the petitioner has filed this petition rxto discharge her from the case in Crl.M.P.No.171 of 2023, which was dismissed by order, dated 10.07.2023 and then, the petitioner has filed an revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2023, before the learned Principal Sessions

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3873 of 2024

¶37

Judge, Ramanathapuram and the same was also dismissed on 14.02.2024. However, suppressing the same, this petition has been filed. On this ground alone, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

11.07.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No LR

¶40

To 1.The Inspector of Police AWPS Ramanad Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶41

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶42

5/6

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3873 of 2024

¶45

B.PUGALENDHI , J.

¶46

¶47

CRL.O.P (MD) No.3873 of 2024

¶48

11.07.2024

¶49

6/6

¶50

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

Anusiya v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anusiya v. The Inspector of Police

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

P. Ganesan Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Jegadeesan Vs The Superintendent of Police

Sugumaran.M Vs The Collector

O.Murugeswari Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Rajadurai Vs The Superintendent of Police

Madhavan Vs The Superintendent of Police