Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Murugasan vs The State Rep By
2021 Latest Caselaw 22215 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22215 Mad
Judgement Date : 11 November, 2021

Madras High Court
Murugasan vs The State Rep By on 11 November, 2021
                                                                      Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 11.11.2021

                                                   CORAM :

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                         Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021
                                                     and
                                     Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.8643 and 8644 of 2021

                     1.Murugasan
                     2.Selvarasi
                     3.Selvaraj
                     4.Palaniammal
                     5.Loganayaki
                     6.Rajeshkumar                                    ... Petitioners
                                                      Vs.

                     1.The State rep by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       All Women Police Station,
                       Dindigul Town,
                       Dindigul District.
                       (Crime No.6 of 2018)

                     2.Preethi                                        ... Respondents



                     Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of

                     Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge

                     sheet in C.C.No.210 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/6
                                                                              Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021


                     Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District and quash the same

                     insofar as the petitioners are concerned.


                                        For Petitioners    : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
                                        For Respondents    : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar,
                                                             Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1


                                                           ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed by Accused Nos.2 to

7 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.210 of 2019 on the file of the

Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2.The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The

prosecution alleges that the accused have committed the offences under

Sections 498(A), 420, 406, 323 and 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of

Tamilnadu prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a document of

the year 2015 to show that the defacto complainant had already taken

back all her srithana articles. The case in question was lodged only in the

year 2018. Though, this contention advanced by the petitioners' counsel

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021

has considerable persuasive value, I am afraid that in exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, I may not be in a position to

consider such a document. If it is a public document, the same can be

certainly taken note of. But it is not a public document. Therefore, the

petitioners will have to necessarily mark the same and prove it only

during trial. That apart, the other contention advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioners also involves undertaking a probe into facts.

Therefore, leaving open the petitioners' defences, this criminal original

petition is dismissed. The petitioners are based in Kanchipuram. The

trial is taking place at Dindigul. If the petitioners are made to attend to

every hearing, they will be definitely put to considerable hardships.

Taking note of overall facts and circumstances, the personal appearance

of the petitioners before the Court below is dispensed with. However,

the Court below will insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners

only on three occasions namely, to answer the charge, for examination

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and at the time of pronouncing Judgment.

On all other occasions, the petitioners need not appear before the Court

below. However, on those occasions, the petitioners will have to be

represented by their counsel. If the petitioners' counsel is also absent, the

benefit of dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners will

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021

stand automatically vacated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

11.11.2021

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ias

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 Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias

Crl.O.P(MD)No.16075 of 2021

11.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter