Jegan vs The State Rep By
2022 Latest Caselaw 15307 Mad

                                                                       Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED: 14.09.2022

                                                    CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                          Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018
                                                      and
                                      Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6716 & 6717 of 2018

                     Jegan                            : Petitioner/Sole Accused
                                                       Vs.

                     1.The State rep by
                       The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                       Kadaiyalumoodu Police Station,
                       Kanyakumari District.
                       (In Crime No.7/2018)           : 1st Respondent/Complainant

                     2.Delphin Mary                   : 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant




                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
                     Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to
                     the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.115 of 2018, on the file of the
                     learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, and quash the same as
                     illegal.



                     1/7



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018




                                        For Petitioner   : Mr.C.Kishore
                                        For R1            : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
                                                           Additional Public Prosecutor.
                                        For R2            : Mr.S.Sivakumar


                                                           ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.115 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,

Kuzhithurai.

2.The petitioner is the son-in-law of the second respondent/defacto

complainant. The second respondent gave a complaint on the ground that

the petitioner along with 5 unknown accused persons came to her

property and abused her in filthy language and they possessed deadly

weapons and were attempting to attack the second respondent. The

second respondent started shouting and as a result of the same, the

neighbours and others came to the scene of occurrence. On seeing that,

all the accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. On

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018

complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.7 of 2018 as against

the petitioner and other unknown accused persons for the offences under

Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. Ultimately, on

completion of the investigation, final report came to be filed before the

Court below only as against the petitioner and it was taken on file by the

Court below and cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections

448, 294(b) & 506(ii) IPC. The proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2018 has

been put to challenge in the present writ petition.

3.Heard Mr.C.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel

appearing for the second respondent.

4.This is a case, where there is long standing dispute between the

petitioner and his wife. The wife of the petitioner is working as a Nurse

in Kuwait. According to the second respondent, the petitioner came to the

property on 12.12.2017, at about 06.00 p.m, along with 5 other accused

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018

persons, abused and threatened her and attempted to attack with deadly

weapons.

5.The Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, have

also examined one Mr.Selvam and Subin, who are said to be eye

witnesses in this case. They gave a version as if only the petitioner had

come with a sickle to the scene of occurrence and threatened the second

respondent and on seeing the crowd, he fled away from the place.

6.Under normal circumstances, this Court will not go into the

contradiction of the witnesses from the statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C and that will be beyond the scope of consideration under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, in the back ground of the present case

such a contradiction has a lot of significance.

7.There is a long standing dispute. As mentioned above, various

proceedings were initiated between the husband and wife and the

petitioner has also sought for guardianship over the child. In this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018

background, a complaint came to be given by the second respondent and

the statement recorded from the second respondent, runs contrary to the

statement recorded from two others, who are claimed as eye witnesses.

That by itself creates a clear doubt as to whether any such incident really

had taken place.

8.The over all facts and circumstances of this case shows that there

is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the daughter of the

defacto complainant and the guardianship issue is pending. This has

impelled the second respondent to give complaint. In the considered view

of this Court, the complaint is attended with mala fides. This case

squarely falls within guideline No.7 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Bajanlal 1992 SCC Crl 426.

The continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner is a

clear abuse of process of Court and it requires the interference of this

Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018

9.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2018, pending on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, is hereby

quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

14.09.2022

Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dss

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai,

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadaiyalumoodu Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,

dss

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15192 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.6716 & 6717 of 2018

14.09.2022

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