Madras High Court
Palaniyappan vs The State Rep. Through on 11 January, 2022
1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.17883 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17883 of 2021 and
CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.9766 & 9767 of 2021
1. Palaniyappan
2. Selvaraj
3. Ramprasath ... Petitioners / Accused 1 to 3
Vs.
1. The State rep. Through,
The Inspector of Police,
Guziliamparai police station,
Dindigul District.
(Crime No.859 of 2020) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2. Vimalarani ... 2nd Respondent /
Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.62 of
2021 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur and quash the same.
(Amended vide order dated 21.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.11669 of
2021)
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sivaram
For R-1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R-2 : Mr.R.Narayanan
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.17883 OF 2022
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. This criminal original petition has been filed to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Vedasandur.
3. The second respondent Vimalarani is the defacto
complainant. Her case is that on the occurrence date, the
offences in question were committed on her. There are specific
overt acts against the first petitioner and the second
petitioner. However, against the third petitioner Ramprasath,
the only allegation is that he criminally intimidated the defacto
complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would further point out that the third petitioner has been
selected in a campus interview and that the pendency of this
case would affect his career and life prospectus.
4. Since there are no sufficient materials to prosecute
against the third petitioner, I intimated the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.17883 OF 2022
that the second respondent need not press her case against
the third petitioner herein and thereupon the learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent submitted that at the
instance of the first petitioner Palaniyappan, she is having
prosecuted in C.C.No.74 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate, Vedasandur. The first petitioner through his
counsel states that he has no objection for quashing the
proceedings in C.C.No.74 of 2020 where Vimalarani is the
accused.
5. In view of the statement made by the petitioners'
counsel, the proceedings in C.C.No.74 of 2020 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, against the defacto
complainant Vimalarani and her mother stand quashed. The
petitioners' counsel also states that he will be satisfied, if the
impugned proceedings are quashed in so far as the third
petitioner is concerned. For this, the defacto complainant has
no objection. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are
quashed as far as the third petitioner Ramprasath is
concerned. The first petitioner Palaniyappan and the second
petitioner Selvaraj of course will have to face the proceedings
in C.C.No.62 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.17883 OF 2022
6. This criminal original petition is partly allowed. Taking
note of the facts and circumstances of this case, the personal
appearance of petitioners 1 and 2 before the Court below is
dispensed with. However, they have to appear before the
Court below on the following three occasions:-
i) To answer the charges,
ii) at the time of examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
and
iii) at the time of pronouncement of Judgment.
Petitioners 1 and 2 also will have to appear when their
presence is insisted upon by the trial Court and on all other
occasions, petitioners 1 and 2 can be represented by their
counsel. If their counsel also fails to appear, the benefit of this
order will stand vacated automatically. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.17883 OF 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The Additional District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Guziliamparai police station,
Dindigul District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17883 of 2021
11.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
