Madras High Court
Sathish Babu vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police on 30 September, 2021
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 30.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016 & Crl.MP.No.8089 of 2016
[Video Conferencing]
1.Sathish Babu
2.Nandogopal
3.Devika ... Petitioners
Versus
1.State Rep by Inspector of Police,
B9, Saravanampatti Police Station,
Coimbatore.
2.Uthra ... Respondents
Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records in C.C.No.115/2016 on the file of the Learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
For R1 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016
ORDER
I think it would be a futile exercise to keep the present petition on the
board of this Court for another five years since, there appears to be a remote
possibility of the 2nd respondent ever appearing before this Court. The
present petition has been filed seeking to interfere with further progress in
C.C.No.115 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Coimbatore and to quash the same.
2.The said calendar case had been taken cognizance by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, under Section 75(i)(c) of the Tamil
Nadu City Police Act, also incidentally under Sections 323 and 506(i) of
IPC.
3.Notice had been directed to the 2nd respondent and the name address
of the 2nd respondent is also printed in the cause list. There is no appearance
on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
4.However, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
had forwarded a copy of the order of the Principal Family Court at
Coimbatore in H.M.O.P.No.1197 of 2014 dated 07.04.2017. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016
original petition had been filed by the 2nd respondent herein as against the
petitioner / her husband under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 seeking declaration that the marriage which had been solemnized
between two of them to be declared as null and void. This fact itself means
that the 2nd respondent had not recognized the marriage solemnized between
two of them. She never recognized that the 1st petitioner was a lawful
husband. She wanted to declare such marriage solemnized which had been
conducted joining them as husband and wife to be declared as a void
marriage.
5.Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that
after that, the 2nd respondent had moved away separately and the petitioners
herein had not contacted her and that therefore continuation of the
proceedings in the calendar case would only be a futile exercise as the
charges therein can never be substantiated in view of the absence of the
witness who has to speak about the charges.
6.As a matter of fact, in the very same order, it had been stated that
the 2nd respondent agreed to withdraw the allegations made by her against
the 1st petitioner. The manner in which she has decided to withdraw the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016
petition is by abstaining from Court proceedings and I would respect that
particular fact.
7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017 9 SCC 641, Parbatbhai Aahir
Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others V. State of Gujarat
and Another, had given necessary principles which should be examined by
the Court, wherein, the High Court can exercise its inherent power, interfere
with proceedings to prevent and abuse of the process of the Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Sub clause 9 of the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme is as follows:-
“9).In such a case, the High Court may quash
the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise
between the disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice.”
8.In the above said principle, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had very
clearly stated that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in view
of a compromise between the disputants and the possibility of a conviction
becoming remote and continuation of criminal proceedings causing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016
oppression and prejudice.
9.Continuation of further proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2016 would
certainly be a futile exercise, in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent had
herself sought that the marriage between herself and 1st petitioner should be
declared as null and void and actually also obtained such an order. She has
also not appeared before this Court and even though notice had been served
and also the name and address of the 2nd respondent had been printed in the
cause list. The possibility of conviction of the alleged offence are therefore
very very remote. Continuation of the proceedings would only be an
oppression to the present petitioners.
10.In view of these facts, following the ratio in the judgment
aforesaid, I would interfere with the further proceedings in C.C.No.115 of
2016 now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Coimbatore. Hence, the present Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.09.2021
smv
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
smv
To
1.The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police,
B9, Saravanampatti Police Station,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Crl.OP.No.16770 of 2016
30.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
