Madras High Court
Vigneshwaran vs State Rep. By on 6 September, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
And
Crl.M.P.No.5109 of 2018
1.Vigneshwaran
2.Ramu
3.Saradha ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Villupuram.
(Crime No.30 of 2013)
2.Arunadevi ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the
records relating to C.C.No.531 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.1, Villupuram and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath for R1
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
No Appearance for R2
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to call for the
records relating to C.C.No.531 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.1, Villupuram and to quash the same.
2.The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent,
second petitioner is the father – in – law of the second respondent and
the third petitioner is the mother – in – law of the second respondent.
The facts of the case is that the marriage between the first petitioner
and the second respondent was solemnized on 06.02.2012 at
Cuddalore. Soon after the marriage there was no compatibility
inbetween them and the second respondent is alleged to have tortured
the first petitioner and went away from the matrimonial home. Hence,
the first petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2013 before the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, seeking divorce. The said
petition was allowed on 24.06.2014.
3.In the meanwhile, the second respondent lodged complaint
before the first respondent as against the petitioners and one Kalpana/
sister of the first petitioner alleging that they demanded dowry of Rs.5
Lakhs and they threatened and attacked her using un-parliamentary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
words. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.30 of 2013
under Sections 498A, 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P.Act and
after investigation, the first respondent filed charge sheet in
C.C.No.531 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Villupuram. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this
petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that matrimonial dispute arose inbetween the first petitioner and the
second respondent as soon as their marriage and the first petitioner
filed petition seeking divorce before the competent Court, in which the
second respondent filed counter dated 01.12.2013. In the said
counter, the second respondent has not disclosed any offence alleged
to have been committed by the petitioners, however, lodged a false
complaint as against the petitioners and one Kalpana/ sister of the first
petitioner and the law enforcing agency also without conducting proper
enquiry has mechanically filed the charge sheet, which is un-
sustainable one.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
the first respondent submitted that the issue involved in the case is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
trialable issue which can be decided only at the time of trial and
further submitted that conducting mini trial under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. is impermissible.
6.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the first respondent.
7.Though notice was sent to the second respondent, it was
un-served and hence the petitioners were permitted to take notice to
the second respondent through substituted service by way of paper
publication. Even then, there is no representation for the second
respondent. Hence, considering the pendancy of the case, this Court
proceeds with the case to decide the issue based on the materials
available on record.
8.The facts of the case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the
marriage between the first petitioner and the second respondent was
solemnized on 06.02.2012 at Cuddalore and soon after the marriage,
matrimonial dispute arose inbetween them and the first petitioner filed
petition seeking divorce. Thereafter the second respondent lodged the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
complaint as against the petitioners and one Kalpana/ sister of the first
petitioner alleging that they demanded dowry of Rs.5 Lakhs and they
threatened and attacked her using un-parliamentary words. The
second respondent has filed counter dated 01.12.2013 in
H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2013 and in the said counter, the second respondent
has not disclosed any offence alleged to have been committed by the
petitioners. The allegations levelled as against the petitioners are also
not properly proved. However, there are some allegations as against
the first petitioner. Hence, I have no hesitation to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.531 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court No.1, Villupuram, in respect of the petitioners 2 and 3.
9.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners prayed that the appearance of the first petitioner before the
Trial Court may be dispensed with.
10.Considering the request made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, the appearance of the first petitioner
before the Trial Court is dispensed with. However, this order will not
stand on the way of the Trial Court to insist for the appearance of the
first petitioner for receiving copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and
judgment and as and when the Trial Court feels it necessary.
11.This criminal original petition is dismissed as against the first
petitioner and allowed in respect of the petitioners 2 and 3. The
proceedings in C.C.No.531 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court No.1, Villupuram, is quashed in so far as the petitioners 2 and 3
are concerned. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
06.09.2021
pri
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1,
Villupuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Villupuram.
(Crime No.30 of 2013)
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
Crl.O.P.No.9979 of 2018
And
Crl.M.P.No.5109 of 2018
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
