Madras High Court
M.Paulkamu vs Arul Preethi on 18 January, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7817 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 01.04.2021
PRONOUNCED ON: 19.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No7817 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.5335 of 2017
1.M.Paulkamu
2.P.Vijayarani
3.Udhaya Sakthikamu ... Petitioners/Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
Arul Preethi ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the entire records pertaining to the petition filed under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2016 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Jeyaramachandran
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thirumangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7817 of 2017
2. Brief facts of the case:-
The marriage between the complainant and the son of the first
accused was performed on 04.09.2014 as per the Hindu customs and rites at
Chinnamanoor Sivaprakash Venkatesh Thirumana Mahal. Out of their
wedlock, two male children were born to them. At the time of marriage,
gold jewels worth about 100 sovereigns to the respondent and 10 sovereigns
to her husband and a four wheeler and household utensils worth about 5
lakhs were also given. After the marriage, they settled in Markeyankottai in
the residence of the petitioners. At that time, the first and second accused
started harassing the complainant demanding jewels. They also threatened
that unless the complainant gives the jewels, they would not permit the
complainant to live with her husband. They also did not permit the
complainant to move with the husband freely. They also abused her in
filthy language. The third accused also indulged in making indecent
approach towards the complainant. When this harassment was informed to
her husband, he enquired the same with the accused and he was also abused.
On 05.12.2014, the complainant was sent out of the matrimonial home by
demanding more money and jewels. Thereafter, the complainant started
living with her parents. This was informed to her husband and when he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7817 of 2017
questioned the same with the accused, they assaulted her husband and
caused severe injuries. The complainant made a complaint before Madurai
S.S. Colony Police Station. Even at the time of the enquiry, the accused did
not change their attitude. On the complaint made by the complainant, a case
in Crime No.57 of 2015 was registered by the concerned police.
3.With this averments, the complainant moved the trial Court for
various reliefs, by filing petition under Sections 17, 18, 19 (F)(8) and 22 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and under Section 12 of
the Act and the same is pending. However, challenging the proceedings, the
accused persons have preferred this petition mainly on the ground that the
allegation mentioned in the complaint do not attract any of the provisions of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
4.When the matter came up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of
this Court a copy of the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.28458 of 2019
etc., batch, dated 18.01.2021, wherein, it is held that quashment of
proceedings initiated under Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, will not lie under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. More
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7817 of 2017
over, it is held that the provisions under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act is basically civil in nature. So the respondents
before the trial Court/petitioners herein must work out their remedy as per
law and guidelines issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, to
conclude the enquiry within a stipulated time.
5.In view of the judgment by this Court in the above said batch of
cases, challenging the proceedings will not lie and the petitioners can work
out their remedy before the trial Court as per law.
6.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.04.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
vsd
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7817 of 2017
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thirumangalam.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7817 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
vsd
Crl.O.P.(MD)No7817 of 2017
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.5335 of 2017
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
