Madras High Court
Kather Oli vs Ahadha Parveen on 1 February, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 01.02.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 26.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.4924 of 2017
1.Kather Oli
2.Abdul Rahim
3.Kamarunnisha
4.Saithajalva
5.Nasirunnisha
6.Mohamed Rafi ... Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
Ahadha Parveen ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records pertaining to the petition in D.V.C.No.128 of 2016 on the
file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy and quash the same.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For Respondent : A.K.Manickam
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in D.V.C.No.128 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional
Mahila Court, Trichy.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the
first respondent before the Trial Court are the husband and wife.
The petitioner, who is the respondent herein, filed a petition
before the Trial Court seeking various reliefs as set out in
Sections 18,19,20 and 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, on the following grounds:-
The marriage between the parties took place on 22.06.2017
in K.K. Nagar Main Road at Jegan Madha Thirumana Mandapam,
Trichy. At the time of marriage, 132 sovereigns of gold jewels
were given. Apart from that, some gold jewels were also given to
her in-laws. Within four days from the date of marriage, her
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
husband and her in-laws demanded that the jewels given to the
petitioner must be weighed. For which, the petitioner refused.
But, under threat, she handed over the jewels. They took the
jewels to the jewellery shop for weighing. They informed her that
it weighs only 132 sovereigns and scolded the petitioner that
they were cheated by the father of the petitioner and harassed
her.
3.When they were living in Thirumangalam for four
months, the in-laws, threatened and harassed the petitioner
demanding more money and jewels. At that time, the husband
was in Dubai. When the petitioner informed the same to him,
but, he did not take any care.
4. After that, the petitioner went to Dubai and lived with
her husband. Even during that time, the in-laws demanded
money and jewels through phone. When they came to India in
May 2008, again, they demanded dowry and harassed her. In
course of time, the first child was born on 13.08.2009 and the
second child was born on 19.10.2011. After the birth of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
second child, she was taken to Thirumangalam by the in-laws.
During her stay in Thirumangalam, again her in-laws demanded
money and jewels and harassed her and one day the sister-in-
laws abused the petitioner and so, trouble arose, in which, she
was assaulted. The husband did not take any care inspite of the
information given by the petitioner. Later, the petitioner went to
Dubai along with two child. After one year, due to the ill health
of the husband in June 2012, the petitioner returned to India
along with her husband. Again, the in-laws harassed her.
5. In November 2014, at about 09.30 p.m, at the instigation
of the mother-in-law and sister-in-laws, the husband assaulted
her. As a result of which, she suffered grievous injuries and she
took treatment for two and half months in a private hospital.
Again they joined together on 21.01.2015. Even after that,
harassment continued. Out of the earning of the husband,
properties were purchased in the name of the mother-in-law and
father-in-law and they have also taken the jewels of the
petitioner and put in the locker in Canara Bank, Thirumangalam.
Because of the harassment and ill treatment,
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
she left the matrimonial home and lodged a complaint on
23.05.2015, before the Thirumangalam Police Station. Now, she
resides with her father in Trichy. She also gave a complaint
before the Jamad, Kaja Nagar, Trichy. But, the husband and
in-laws did not appear before the Jamad.
6. With this averments and allegations, the petitioner, who
is the respondent herein filed the above said petition seeking an
order of returning 150 sovereigns of jewels, Sridhana properties,
cash amount of two lakhs and also seeking maintenance amount
of Rs.50,000/- for Educational, Medical and Domestic Expenses
for her children and herself. The case was taken on file in
D.V.C.No.128 of 2016 by the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.
7.Seeking quashment of the said petition, the respondents
1 to 6 have filed this petition on the ground that the Trial Court
did not follow proper procedure and the petition was not filed in
the proper format as prescribed under the Act. The petitioners 4
to 6 are living outside of the matrimonial house and so, they
were no way connected to the dispute between the husband and
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
the wife. They have been impleaded only for the purpose of
wreak vengeance. It is also contended that the Social Welfare
Officer, after enquiry, has found that there was no demand for
dowry and so, the petition is liable to be quashed.
8. This petition was heard along with Crl.OP(MD)No.2878
of 2017, since Crl.OP(MD)No.2878 of 2017 filed to quash
C.C.No.7 of 2017 against these petitioners on the complaint
made by the respondent herein, in that petition, the entire
records were called for.
9. Since this petition is filed challenging the proceedings
undertaken by the Judicial Magistrate, Mahila, Trichy under
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in view of the
judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in a batch of
Criminal Original petitions dated 18.01.2021, Crl.OP.Nos.28458
of 2019 etc., batch, which after a detailed consideration of the
entire law on this point has held that the petition filed by the
aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act,
2005, is only a civil proceedings and not a criminal proceedings
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
and the aggrieved person is entitled to pursue his remedy as
provided under the Act and since it has been taken as a civil
proceedings, even though, filed before the Judicial Magistrate of
the first Class, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be
invoked to quash the same. If at all only power under Article 227
can be invoked. That too when an extraordinary case is made
out, involving jurisdictional error and causing of manifest or
substantial injustice. In the concluding portion of the order, it
has been observed in paragraphs 53 and 54 are as follows:-
“53.In the result, these petitions under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not maintainable, and will
accordingly stand dismissed. The petitioners will be
at liberty to approach the Magistrate, and work out
their remedies in accordance with the directions
laid down, supra. The Magistrates shall endeavour
to complete the proceedings within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
54.The Registry is directed to circulate a copy
of this order to the Principal District and Sessions
Judges in the State, who in turn, will do the needful
to bring the directions laid down in this order to
the notice of the Judicial Magistrates, in their
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
respective Sessions Divisions, for proper disposal
of the applications filed under Section 12 of the
D.V.Act.”
10. This Court is of the considered view that this petition
will not lie and the parties shall work out their remedies as
provided under the Act as observed and directed in the above
said judgment.
11.With the above observation, this petition stands
dismissed and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila
Court, Trichy, is directed to comply with the direction passed in
the above said judgment. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.02.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
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
The Additional Mahila Court,
Trichy.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7236 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.4924 of 2017
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
