Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6716 & 6717 of 2018
Jegan : Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kadaiyalumoodu Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(In Crime No.7/2018) : 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Delphin Mary : 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to
the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.115 of 2018, on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, and quash the same as
illegal.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kishore
For R1 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R2 : Mr.S.Sivakumar
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.
2.The petitioner is the son-in-law of the second respondent/defacto complainant. The second respondent gave a complaint on the ground that the petitioner along with 5 unknown accused persons came to her property and abused her in filthy language and they possessed deadly weapons and were attempting to attack the second respondent. The second respondent started shouting and as a result of the same, the neighbours and others came to the scene of occurrence. On seeing that, all the accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. On 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018 complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.7 of 2018 as against the petitioner and other unknown accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, final report came to be filed before the Court below only as against the petitioner and it was taken on file by the Court below and cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 448, 294(b) & 506(ii) IPC. The proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2018 has been put to challenge in the present writ petition.
3.Heard Mr.C.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4.This is a case, where there is long standing dispute between the petitioner and his wife. The wife of the petitioner is working as a Nurse in Kuwait. According to the second respondent, the petitioner came to the property on 12.12.2017, at about 06.00 p.m, along with 5 other accused 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018 persons, abused and threatened her and attempted to attack with deadly weapons.
5.The Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, have also examined one Mr.Selvam and Subin, who are said to be eye witnesses in this case. They gave a version as if only the petitioner had come with a sickle to the scene of occurrence and threatened the second respondent and on seeing the crowd, he fled away from the place.
6.Under normal circumstances, this Court will not go into the contradiction of the witnesses from the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and that will be beyond the scope of consideration under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, in the back ground of the present case such a contradiction has a lot of significance.
7.There is a long standing dispute. As mentioned above, various proceedings were initiated between the husband and wife and the petitioner has also sought for guardianship over the child. In this 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018 background, a complaint came to be given by the second respondent and the statement recorded from the second respondent, runs contrary to the statement recorded from two others, who are claimed as eye witnesses. That by itself creates a clear doubt as to whether any such incident really had taken place.
8.The over all facts and circumstances of this case shows that there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the daughter of the defacto complainant and the guardianship issue is pending. This has impelled the second respondent to give complaint. In the considered view of this Court, the complaint is attended with mala fides. This case squarely falls within guideline No.7 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Bajanlal 1992 SCC Crl 426. The continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of Court and it requires the interference of this Court.
5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018
9.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2018, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.09.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dss To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai,
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadaiyalumoodu Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J., dss Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6716 & 6717 of 2018 14.09.2022 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis