Manish vs The State Rep. By Its
2022 Latest Caselaw 17243 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 17243 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2022

Madras High Court

Manish vs The State Rep. By Its on 3 November, 2022

                                                                          Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17897 of 2018

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 03.11.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                            CRL.O.P.(MD)No.17897 of 2018

                                                         and

                                      CRL.M.P.(MD)No.7941 & 7942 of 2018



                     1.Manish
                     2.Annathai
                     3.G.Sankari
                     4.Gandhi Murugan                           ...Petitioners /Accused 1 to 4


                                                          Vs.
                     1.The State rep. by its
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        All Women Police Station,
                        Tirunelveli
                        at Palayamkottai.
                        (In Crime No.4 of 2018)             ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
                     2.S.Sivakama Sundarai                  ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
                                                                                   Complainant


                     1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17897 of 2018

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

                     to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.117 of 2018 on the

                     file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli and quash the same as

                     illegal.



                                    For Petitioners    : Mr.M.Suresh

                                    For Respondents : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi - for R1

                                                        Government Advocate (Crl. side)

                                                       : No Appearance - for R2



                                                       ORDER

This petition was filed by the husband and in-laws of the

defacto complainant to quash the proceedings pending before the

Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.117 of 2018.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 08.10.2018,

this Court passed the following order :-

"The issue involved in this case is the matrimonial dispute. The marriage itself is taken

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17897 of 2018

place on 09.02.2017. Immediately after the marriage, the dispute has arosen between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. The first petitioner is working in CISF at Assam and the defaco complainant is working in Gr.II Constable in Armed Force, Tirunelveli.

2. From the records it is clear that the first petitioner had promised to take the defacto complainant with him to Assam and therafter did not fulfil his promise.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances this Court deems to refer this case to the Mediation Centre. The first petitioner is directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 30.10.2018 at 03.30 p.m. The first respondent shall inform the defacto complainant to be present before the Mediation Centre on the same day. The Mediation Centre is directed to appoint a senior mediator inorder to make an attempt to resolve the dispute between the parties amicably. The Mediation Centre shall complete the process of mediation within a period of three months and file a report before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17897 of 2018

4. In the mean time shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No. 117 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli pending disposal of the Criminal Original Petition."

3. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing on

29.04.2022, and this Court passed the following order :-

"In the last occasion, both the parties were appeared. Even the first petitioner was willing for reunion, however, the second respondent has expressed that she is not willing for reunion.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that because of the dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant herein, a family dispute arose between the brother of the petitioner and her wife, which ended in divorce. Now, the second marriage has been arranged for the second respondent by her brother. Only on that ground, she is not willing for reunion with the first petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17897 of 2018

3.The parties shall argue the matter on merits in view of the subsequent development. Even though the second respondent appeared in the previous hearing, today, the second respondent has not appeared and no vakalat has been filed on behalf of her.

4.Post the matter after vacation."

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the

learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing on behalf of the first

respondent submitted that the marriage between the first petitioner and

the second respondent was dissolved by the Sub Court, Sankarankovil, in

H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2018, through a judgment, dated 19.03.2020.

5. In view of the above development, no useful purpose will

be served in proceeding further with the criminal proceedings and the

continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of Court.

6. In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.117 of 2018

pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17897 of 2018