Mohamed Arif vs State Rep.By
2022 Latest Caselaw 7719 Mad

                                                                         Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                DATED: 12.04.2022
                                                     CORAM:
                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP


                                              Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019
                                                       and
                                              Crl.M.P.No.835 of 2019

                     1.Mohamed Arif
                     2.Mymoon Beevee                                            ... Petitioners

                                                          Vs.

                     State Rep.by
                     The Inspector of Police
                     All Women Police Station
                     Panruti
                     Cuddalore District
                     Crime No.2 of 2017.                                       ... Respondent



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records of the charge sheet in C.C.No.70 of
                     2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore and
                     quash the same.


                                         For Petitioner    : Mr.M.Gnanamoorthy
                                         For Respondent    : Mr.R.Vinothraja
                                                             Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019


                                                       ORDER

This petition had been filed to call for the records of the charge

sheet in C.C.No.70 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila

Court, Cuddalore and quash the same.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the

Petitioners are the parents of the Defacto complainant. The learned Counsel

for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the averments in the

First Information Report, which is enclosed in the typed set of papers and

submitted that except two averments, there is no mentioning of specific

overt acts as against the Petitioners herein. Therefore, on the basis of the

complaint and FIR, no offence is attracted against the Petitioners herein.

Hence, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks to quash the charge

sheet.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners and submitted that admittedly, there are averments regarding

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019

the overt acts of the Petitioners. Further, in the course of the investigation,

the Investigating Officer had collected materials and based on the same, the

final report of the investigation is laid before the Court of the learned

Additional Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Cuddalore, which was taken

cognizance, by the learned Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.70 of 2017.

Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently objects

to quash the charge sheet.

4. He further submitted that if at all, the contentions of the

learned Counsel for the Petitioners are to be considered, it can only be done

during the trial before the Trial Court. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this

petition as not maintainable as per Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) relied on the

ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Taramani Parakh

Vs. State of Madhya Pradhesh and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260,

and submitted that quashing of proceedings before the trial is not

permissible.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019

6. The above objection of the learned Government Advocate

(Crl.Side) is acceptable. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed

as having no merits, as per Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, considering the age of the

Petitioners herein and considering the fact that the identity of the Petitioners

are not in dispute, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass

appropriate orders, if any petition is filed seeking exemption from personal

appearance.

12.04.2022

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dna

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019

To

1.The Additional Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Panruti Cuddalore District Crime No.2 of 2017.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.

dna

Crl.O.P.No.1272 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.835 of 2019

12.04.2022

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