Madras High Court
R.Sundaravadivelu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 July, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.3098 of 2020
1.R.Sundaravadivelu
2.S.Vanaja ...Petitioners
-Vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by- Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Women Police Station,
Mylapore, Chennai-600004.
2.Abirami Kalyanasundaram ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.5245 of 2017 on
the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and quash
all proceeding against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Natarajan
Senior Counsel, for
Ms.K.Ramani
Mr.C.P.Palanichamy
Mr.T.Dhasarathan
Mr.A.Kalanidhi
Mr.C.Vidhusan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : T.Gowthaman
for M/s.B.Sujana
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.5245 of 2017 on the file of the learned XVIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, for the alleged offences under
Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused got
married with the second respondent on 22.02.2007. Immediately, after
marriage they settled separately at No.10-H, Sanjivini Apartments,
L.B.Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041. Thereafter, the first accused
tortured to the core and also had beaten the second respondent in a
drunken mode. Whenever, the second respondent intended to call her
father-in-law and mother-in-law namely, the second and third accused
over phone, the first accused snatched the phone and thrown outside.
That apart, whenever the second respondent informed to them, they used
to advise her that as directed by their son, you live with him. Therefore,
she lodged a complaint and the same has been registered for the offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
under Section 406 and 498-A of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
there are three accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3.
They are none other than the parents of the first accused. Even according
to the case of the prosecution, after marriage the first accused and the
second respondent herein settled separately and lived separately.
4. A perusal of the entire complaint and charge sheet and other
statements revealed that there is absolutely no allegations as against the
petitioners except that they are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
defacto complainant. In an earlier occasion, the petitioners have filed a
quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.17816 of 2017 before this Court. It was
dismissed on the ground that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
wrongly represented that already PW1 was examined and as such, at this
stage after commencing the trial, this Court cannot entertain the quash
petition and therefore, it was dismissed by an order dated 27.04.2019.
Whereas, the service itself is not yet completed to the witness and no trial
has begin even till today. Therefore, the second quash petition is very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
much maintainable. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the
various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He further
submitted to attract the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC,
no specific overtacts of cruelty as against the petitioners to constitute the
offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. He also pointed out that
the second respondent filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence
Act, maintenance case and also guardianship original petition. In all the
petitions, there is no iota of allegations as against the petitioners.
Therefore, only to wreak vengeance as against the petitioners, they have
been falsely implicated as accused without any specific overtact.
5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent
would submit that the second quash petition is not all maintainable, since
the petitioners filed quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.17816 of 2017 and the
same was dismissed. He vehemently contended that this Court dismissed
the quash petition not only on the ground that the prosecution has
examined PW1 and this Court categorically stated that all the points
raised by the petitioners have to be considered only during the trial.
Therefore, all the grounds raised by the petitioners were already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
considered by this Court and not inclined to quash the proceedings
initiated for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC.
Therefore, the present quash petition would amount to review and review
cannot be permitted as contemplated under Section 362 of IPC.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit
that there are specific averments and allegations as against the petitioners
to attract the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. That apart,
all the grounds raised by the petitioners are in mixed question of facts
and it cannot be considered under the quash petition. He further
submitted that the present quash petition is nothing but review and there
is a bar to review in the criminal proceedings under Section 362 of
Cr.P.C. Though, the Investigating Officer wrongly submitted that already
the trial has commenced and as such, this Court dismissed the quash
petition and all the points raised by the petitioners are also duly
considered while dismissing the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
7. Heard Mr.A.Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate
(Crl.Side), appearing for the first respondent and Mr.T.Gowthaman,
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
8. There are totally three accused in which the petitioners are
arrayed as A2 and A3, the father and mother of the first accused and
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second respondent herein.
9. A perusal of statements of the second respondent and charge
sheet revealed that the allegations made against the petitioners are as
follows:
"(i) jpUkzkhd ehs; Kjw;bfhz;L vd; fztupd;
bgw;nwhu; vd; fztuplk; vd;idg; gw;wp ,Hpthfg;
ngrpdhu;/ nkYk; ehd; @,ir ntshsu;@ rK:fj;ijr;
nru;e;jts; vd;gjhy; vd; rhjp bgaiu Fwpg;gpl;L vd;idf;
nftykhd thu;j;ijfisf; Twp kupahijf; Fiwthf vd;
fztupd; bgw;nwhu; vd;id elj;jpdu;/
gaj;jpdhy; kpul;rpaile;j ehd; vd; khkdhiu
(ii)
cjtpf;F miHj;njd;/ me;j neuj;jpy; vd; fztu; vd;
bry;nghid gpL';fp cilj;bjwpe;jhu;/
(iii) ,jid vd; fztupd; jhahuhd
jpUkjp/v!;/td$h mtu;fsplk; ehd; Kiwapl;lnghJ @ehnd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
vd; jhia vd; je;ij mog;gij ghu;jJ ; tsu;e;jts;
mjdhy; mJ xd;Wk; bgupa gpur;rid ,y;[email protected]
@bgz;fshfpa ehk; jhd; bghWikahf xj;Jg; nghf
ntz;Lk;@ vd;W Twpdhu;/ ehDk; vd; je;ija[k; IIo
tshfj;jpwF
; brd;W vd; khkdhuplk; vd; fztu; f";rh
gad;gLj;Jtija[k; Kk;igapypUe;J jd;Dlndna mjid
gazj;jpy; vLj;J tUtija[k; mjdhy; rl;lgoahf tUk;
Mgj;Jfisa[k; cly; eyk; bfLtij[ak[ ; mtu; vdf;F
,iHf;Fk; bfhLikfisa[k; gw;wp Twp epahak; nfl;lnghJ
eP mijf; fz;L bfhs;shnj mJ ,';F rf$k; vd;W
brhy;yp myl;rpag;gLj;jptpl;lhu;/
m';F vd; khkdhu; khkpahu; fz;Kd;dhy; vd;
(iv)
fztu; vd;id kPz;Lk; kPzL; k; moj;jhu;/ mtu;fspUtUk;
vd; fztuplkpUe;J vd;idf; fhg;ghw;w Kaw;rp
bra;atpyi
; y/"
10. That apart, immediately after marriage, the second
respondent and the first accused lived separately and the petitioners are
living separately. Except the above said allegations, there are no other
allegations to charge the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A
and 406 of IPC. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 498-
A of IPC.
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of
a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical)
of the woman; or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person related to her
meet such demand.]"
11. The above provision indicated to prevent cruelty committed
upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state
intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial
litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a
greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage,
now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to
employ provisions such as 498-A of IPC as instruments to settle personal
scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. Further all the allegations as against the petitioners are
trivial in nature without proper and specific allegation. A perusal of the
complaint lodged under the Domestic Violence Act and maintenance
case, revealed that there is no single allegation made as against the
petitioners. Therefore, the present complaint has been initiated as against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
the petitioners only to wreak vengeance as against the first accused.
13. It is seen from the statements and it is very clear that there
are several serious allegations as against the first accused to attract the
offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. Whereas, from the above
allegations, no offence is made out under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC
as against the petitioners. The petitioners are in-laws, cannot at any rate
be made responsible and cannot be made as accused persons, merely on
the ground that they are aware about the cruelty committed by the first
accused.
14. Insofar as the contentions raised by the second respondent
that already this Court dismissed the quash petition filed by the
petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.17816 of 2017 by an order dated 27.04.2019
and as such, the present quash petition is nothing but review the earlier
order and there is a bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C.
15. A perusal of the order passed by this Court revealed that the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as if, already the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
P.W.1 was examined and the matter is posted for further evidence. A
perusal of records revealed that the trial has not been commenced even
till today. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was wrongly
instructed to submit like that before this Court. While this Court recorded
the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor without
looking into the grounds raised by the petitioners, this Court dismissed
the quash petition and this Court also observed that all the points raised
by the petitioners have to be considered only during the trial. Since, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that already the trial has
commenced and the P.W.1 was examined, this Court was not in a
position to consider the grounds raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the
present quash petition would not amount to review the earlier order
passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.17816 of 2017 by an order dated
27.04.2019. When this Court had no occasion to consider any of the
grounds raised by the petitioners, the second quash petition is very much
maintainable.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is absolutely no
ground to prosecute the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
and 406 of IPC. However, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial
as against the first accused, within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.5245 of 2017 on the
file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, is hereby
quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.07.2022
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
cda/mn
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
To
1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Women Police Station,
Mylapore, Chennai-600004.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.5456 of 2020
and Crl.M.P.No.3098 of 2020
04.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
