Madras High Court
Arokkiyasamy vs State By on 2 February, 2021
1 Crl.OP No.1394 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P.No.1394 of 2017
and
Crl.MP.Nos.975 & 976 of 2017
1.Arokkiyasamy
2.Sebasthiammal
3.Manjula
4.Alex @ Mariya Alexsander
5.Arul @ Arulraj
6.Nainar @ Francis
7.RoseMeri @ Somanasameri
8.Roselin Meri ...Petitioners/
Accused 2 to 9
.Vs.
1.State By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station, (Mathiya Paguthi),
Covai City.
2.Umalurdhu Mery ..Respondent/
Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 Crl.OP No.1394 of 2017
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash all
the proceedings against the petitioners only in C.C.No.10 of 2016
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court,
Coimbatore in Crime No.1of 2015, on the file of the Inspector of
Police, AWPS (Mathiya Paguthi) Covai City.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mr.Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate
for R 1
Mr.Rajasaravanan
for R 2
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2016, on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore.
2.The respondent Police has filed a final report before
the Court below against 9 accused persons and the same has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
been taken cognizance for an offence under Section 498(A) and
506(i) IPC.
3.The petitioners have been arrayed as A2 to A9. The
1st and 2nd petitioners are the father and mother of A1. The 3rd, 4th
and 5th petitioners are sister and brothers of A1. The 6 th and 7th
petitioners are uncle and aunt of A1 and the 8th petitioner is the
wife of the 4th petitioner.
4.The marriage between the 2nd respondent and A1
took place in the year 2010. There was some misunderstanding
between the parties and it is alleged that the de facto complainant
was not even allowed to do any work in the matrimonial home
and she was not provided with proper food. It is further alleged
that the petitioners had imposed so many conditions to the de
facto complainant and also got her signature in certain documents
and she was also threatened. Based on these allegations, the
final report has been filed against 9 accused persons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5.The prosecution has examined LW-1 to LW-5 to
speak about the dispute between the 2nd respondent and her
husband's family. LW-1 is the de facto complainant, LW-2 is the
mother of LW-1, LW-3 is the father of LW-1, LW-4 is the sister of
LW-1, LW-5 is the uncle of LW-1, LW-6 and LW-7 are the
neighbors who talk about disputes between the parties and the
attempts made to reconcile and settle the dispute.
6.A careful reading of the statements given by the
witnesses shows that the same allegations have been repeated
verbatim by all the witnesses. This is a typical case where all the
family members belonging to the husband have been roped in as
accused persons. General allegations have been made against
them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed
concern on the misuse of Section 498 (A) and the humiliation that
is undergone by the relatives of the husband. This Court is
reminded of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Rajesh Sharma and Others v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2017) 4 CTC
7.The present case squarely falls under the category
of cases where criminal prosecution is lodged against all family
members of the husband only with a view to cause them mental
agony. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the
family members should not be roped in as an accused without any
specific material. But, however the Police keep adding all the
relatives as accused persons and those accused persons ultimately
knock the doors of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8.In the considered view of this Court, there are
absolutely no materials to sustain the charges against the
petitioners for an offence under Section 498 (A) and 506(i) IPC
and the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners is an abuse of process of Court, which requires
interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
9.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2016,
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court,
Coimbatore, against the petitioners is hereby quashed. The Court
below is directed to proceed further with the case insofar as
accused A1 is concerned and the same shall be completed within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
10.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly allowed.
02.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (Mathiya Paguthi),
Covai City.
2. Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court,
Coimbatore.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
KP
CRL.O.P.No.1394 of 2017
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
