Madras High Court
Shiny Vaz @ Shiny vs State Rep. By on 30 November, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 12/04/2022
Pronounced on : 11/07/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.4152 of 2019
Shiny Vaz @ Shiny : Petitioner/A4
Vs.
1.State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District. : R1/Complainant
(Crime No.03 of 2019)
2.Sheeba : R2/De-facto
Complainant
3.Arockia Rajesh Rodrigo : 3rd Respondent
(R3 so muto impleaded as per
the order of this court, dated
30/11/2021)
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.03
2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Veilmuthu
For 1st Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.Ka.Raamakrishnan
For 3rd Respondent : No appearance
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in Crime No.03 of 2019 on the file of
the 1st respondent.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto
complainant is the wife of A1-Arockia Rajesh Rodrigo. The
marriage between them took place, on 05/06/2017 in
Tuticorin. A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. A4 is the
cousin sister of A1. During the marriage, as demanded by
the parents of A1, she was provided with sufficient
seervarisai and sridhana articles. At that time of
marriage, it was stated that A1 is working as Officer in a
ship. It is the second marriage for both of them. Right
from the marriage day, she was ill-treated. He is also
addicted to liquor. On 10th June 2017, she was assaulted by
A1. But that was not condemned or questioned by A2 and A3.
On 23/06/2017, the husband of A4 misbehaved with her
throughout night and during the night, she was severely
assaulted by A1. By pledging her jewels and drawing money
from her bank account through ATM, they are lavishly
spending the money. A4 also criminally intimidated her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
When that was questioned on 20/07/2017, she was also
assaulted in the presence of A2 and A3. After that, A1 by
giving false of good life in future and received 30
sovereigns and pledged the same for discharging his debts.
A4 also instigated A1 to harass and torture her. By
torturing physically and mentally, on 30/07/2014 a letter
was obtained by force, as if she is having illicit intimacy
with another person. They also retained the pledged jewels
which belongs to her. They have also dropped the money
from her bank account leaving a small amount in her
account. In December 2013 also, she was also severely
assaulted and driven out of the house. Later, she was taken
to the matrimonial home by her mother. Again, she was
assaulted and admitted in the hospital. A2 and A3 demanded
50 sovereigns of jewels as additional dowry. On
30/12/2017, throughout night, she was abused, tortured,
ill-treated and sexually assaulted also. On 31/12/2017, A4
came to the house and she was driven out of the house. With
these allegations, the case was registered in Crime No.3
of 2019 for the offences under sections 498(A), 406, 506(i)
IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Woman Act, 2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
3.Seeking quashment of the same, A3, who is the sister
of A1 has preferred this petition.
4.Heard both sides.
5.During the course of argument, it has been brought
to the notice of this court that charge sheet in CC No.146
of 2002 has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.4,
Trichy. Even though final report was filed, when the
interim stay was in force, finding that it is not extended
thereafter. So the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner was permitted to argue the matter on merits.
6.Now it is clear that final report has been filed
and taken cognizance and the trial has also commenced.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is noway connected between
the matrimonial issue between the husband and wife and she
was married long back and settled in life with her husband
in Chennai and she has been wrongly roped in the above
said issue. The complaint was not properly enquired as per
the procedure. Only bald allegation has been made against
the petitioner. He would also rely upon the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preethi Guptha Vs.
State of Jarkhand (2010(7)SCS 667 and other judgments, on
this point.
8.So the question, which arises for consideration is
whether in the light of the factual circumstances, it is
appropriate on the part of this court to quash the criminal
proceedings.
9.But the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent has filed a counter stating that specific
allegation has been made against this petitioner in the
complaint itself. So, it ought to have been allowed to
continue in its logical conclusion, since the final report
has been filed.
10.Even though, we need not take into account the
contents of the final report, but the story version that
has been made in the FIR, it is seen that serious
allegation has been levelled against this petitioner also.
No doubt, the de-facto complainant has made crud allegation
and indecent allegation against this petitioner in the FIR
as if she also criminally intimidated her and instigated A1
to demand dowry and ill-treated her. Even though, such sort
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
of allegation is a crud, but I am of the considered view
that the trial must be taken in its logical conclusion.
Whether this petitioner is involved in the above said
occurrence or not is a matter for trial.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submit that the de-facto complainant went to the extent of
making allegation against the husband of the petitioner, as
if he also ill-treated her mentally on a particular day.
She has also stated that when this petitioner came to her
house, she joined with other accused persons and was driven
out of the house. So, these are the factual aspects, which
cannot be gone into by this court at this stage.
12.Suffice to say that some crud allegation has been
made against this petitioner. No doubt that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Preethi Guptha's case, as stated supra,
has guided the stake-holders, starting from the police
officials, Advocates, who appeared for the parties and the
court should take care of the situation of a particular
occurrence in the particular case and in general has also
pointed out the tendency of the wife to implicate and rope
all the in laws, whenever matrimonial issue comes within
the spouse. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has warned all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
take-holders to be careful, while handling the matrimonial
issue. No doubt, as mentioned above, such sort of tendency
on the part of the de-facto complainant is also cannot be
completely ruled out. Some disturbing allegations have been
made as mentioned above as against the petitioner.
13.An attempt was made by this court to resolve the
dispute amicably. For that purpose, the de-facto
complainant's husband was also suo motu impleaded as 3rd
respondent. But even though notice was served, he has not
chosen to appear either in person or counsel. As mentioned
earlier, in spite of the efforts made by this court, it
could not be settled for unknown reasons. So, I find that
the case must be proceeded to its logical conclusion. But
however, since the petitioner is residing in Chennai along
with her family, her personal appearance is dispensed with
before the trial court.
14.In the result, this criminal original petition is
dismissed. But however, the personal appearance of the
petitioner is dispensed with on condition that within 15
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the
petitioner must appear before the trial court and file an
undertaking affidavit that she will appear as and when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
required by the court, the attested photograph must be
attached in the affidavit and she must ensure that she is
properly represented by an Advocate. Since the crime of the
year 2019, there shall be a direction to the trial Court
namely the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Thoothukudi, to
expedite the trial process and complete the same, within a
period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
15.With the above said direction and liberty, this
criminal original petition stands dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.07.2022
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
er
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
concerned.
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.4,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District,
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
er
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6281 of 2019
11/07/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
