Madras High Court
K.Silambarasan vs State By on 31 August, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.6393 of 2021
K.Silambarasan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Musiri, Tiruchirappalli.
2.Mrs.Swathi .. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in split up C.C.No.64 of 2021,
pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur in Crime
No.1 of 2018 on the file of first respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi for R1
Government Advocate
(Crl. Side)
ORDER
(This Criminal Original petition is heard through video conference)
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings
in split up C.C.No.64 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Thuraiyur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant who is
the second respondent lodged a complaint with the first respondent herein
making the allegation to the effect that the marriage between herself and
first accused was performed on 08.06.2016 and after their marriage she was
harassed for each and every issue. Later they started to live separately in
Karnataka. She was sent to parental home on the eve of Thalai Deepavali.
At the request made by the parents she was permitted to visit her parents
home to celebrate the Deepavali. Thereafter, also trouble continued and she
was harassed even on petty issue. She was not taken to Bangalore by her
husband. Later she went to Karnataka to live with the first accused. During
that period demanding 25 soverigns of jewels, her husband made
harassment. So, she was taken to parental home by her father. At that time,
the in-laws came to her house and after making a promise, she was taken
back. So because of that the first accused was not having cordial
relationship with her. But the harassment continued by demanding 25
soverings more jewels. When this petitioner came to Bangalore, he also
harassed the complainant stating that she must comply the order and
direction of her husband and also abetted the first accused to divorce the
complainant. Even her monthly salary was obtained by the first accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
On 25.05.2017, she was taken to her parental home by the first accused and
left there stating that she should not return to Bangalore. After that there
was a compromise, she was taken to Bangalore. During that period her
father-in-law was also staying for some time. But her husband namely the
first accused stayed in hotel. When this was questioned by her, she was
assaulted. On 13.06.2017, she was taken to Bangalore after leaving her in
Bangalore, the first accused went away without informing her. With these
allegations she made a complaint, which was registered in Crime No.1 of
2018 under Section 498 (A) of IPC. Investigation was undertaken by the
first respondent and final report has been filed along with connected
materials, recorded statements of witnesses before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Thuraiyur, which was also taken on file in C.C.No.64 of 2021.
3.During the relevant time, this petitioner was staying in Dubai. But
however, when the final report is filed his name has also been included.
Since he did not appear before the trial Court, warrant was issued against
him and the case was proceeded against the other accused in C.C.No.14 of
2019 and the case against this petitioner was splited as C.C.No.64 of 2021.
Seeking quashment of the above said case, this petition is filed mainly on
the ground that during the relevant period of the alleged occurrence this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
petitioner was stationed at Dubai for attending his work and he never
involved in matrimonial dispute between the defacto complainant and his
brother, who is the first accused in this matter.
4.The further contention is that in C.C.No.14 of 2019, after full trial
the accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted. The very same benefit can be
extended to this petitioner also. It appears that there was a compromise
between the husband and wife. H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2019 filed by the first
accused namely the husband also came to be allowed on 29.10.2020. A
compromise muchalika has been executed between the husband and wife.
The copy of the same is enclosed in the typed set of papers, wherein, it has
been mentioned that in the presence of the elders they decided to dissolve
their marriage through mutual consent. In the presence of them, she has
also received her articles and jewels on 16.10.2020. It appears that in
pursuance of the above said compromise, the second respondent gave
evidence before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur in C.C.No.14 of
2019 to the effect that in view of the compromise reached between them,
divorce was also granted and the complaint was given by her in the course
of the dispute on assumption. But thereafter, did not support the
prosecution case with regard to the harassment. The copy of the evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
given by the second respondent has also been produced before this Court,
which has been treated as hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, other
accused also did not support the prosecution case. On that ground it came to
be decided.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the co-
accused has been acquitted in the parent case, the same benefit to be
extended to him. It is a settled law that simply because the co-accused has
been acquitted in the parent case, there is no Rule that other accused person
has also been acquitted. But in the case of Shri Sat Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana Judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC 294 cautious note has been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that only if the
evidence is inseparable and indivisible from the parent case against the co-
accused then the benefit of acquittal can be extended. By applying these
principle, if we analyse the case, it is seen that the evidence in both the
cases namely in parent case and as well as in this case are one and the same.
Since the second respondent has not supported the prosecution case and has
stated that no harassment as stated in the complaint took place, nothing is
going to be served by directing the petitioner to undergo the trial process.
So on the considered view that nothing is going to be served by keeping the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
matter pending. So the benefits of acquittal granted in favour of the co-
accused can also be extended to this petitioner and accordingly, the case in
C.C.No.64 of 2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur
is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed.
6.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Musiri, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.12513 of 2021
31.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
