Madras High Court
P.Mahesh vs K.Vidhya on 8 August, 2023
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.2772 and 2773 of 2020
1.P.Mahesh
2. Valarmathi ...Petitioners
Vs
K.Vidhya ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records relating
to the impugned proceedings in CC.No.534 of 2018 on the file of
Additional Mahila Court(Magistrate Level) Nagarcoil and quash the
same as illegal as petitioners concerned
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Balakrishnan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in CC.No.534 of 2018 on the file of Additional Mahila
Court(Magistrate Level) Nagarcoil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
2. According to the petitioner charge sheet has been filed in
CC.No.534 of 2018 on the file of Additional Mahila Court(Magistrate
Level) Nagarcoil as against the petitioners and others for the offences
under Sections 494,496,498(A) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.
According to the petitioners the respondent had given complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C on the allegation that respondent married one
Prabhu on 23.01.2015, who is the brother of the first petitioner herein
and the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. After
marriage the respondent become pregnant and the petitioners and their
family members have compelled the respondent to abort the child,
hence the respondent left the matrimonial home and lived along with
her parents. On 08.11.2018 one male child was born to the respondent.
Thereafter the respondent came to know that her husband married
another girl by name Usha on 09.04.2017. On coming to know about the
same the respondent enquired the same with the said Prabu and at that
time the petitioners and their family members gave life threat to the
respondent. With the above said allegations the respondent has filed
private complaint and the learned Magistrate has taken the case on file
in C.C. No.534 of 2018. Infact the first petitioner is the brother-in-law of
the respondent and the second petitioner is the wife of the first
petitioner. They have nothing to do with the alleged offence as alleged
by the respondent. The first petitioner is working in Tamil Nadu
Transport Corporation and the second petitioner is working as Sales
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
women in Kanyakumari Panchayat Preliminary Agricultural Co-
operative Society, Mahathanapuram and they have not at all
participated in the second marriage of the said Prabhu on 09.04.2017
and they were in duty and they have also produced the copy of
attendance register . Even according to the complaint averments do not
constitute any offence as against this petitioner, hence the proceedings
in CC.No.534 of 2018 on the file of Additional Mahila Court(Magistrate
Level) Nagarcoil.
3. No counter was filed by the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the
respondent had preferred complaint as against the petitioners and
others. The first petitioner was arrayed as A3 and the second petitioner
was arrayed as A6 in the private complaint. Based on the complaint the
the case has been taken cognizance by the Additional Mahila
Court(Magistrate Level) Nagercoil in C.C. No.534 of 2018. The
allegations levelled against the petitioner are general and omnibus
allegations and no specific overt act has been attributed as against the
petitioners. Further the petitioners are working in the Government
Department and inorder to rope the petitioners the respondent has
given false complaint and thereby the above mentioned charge as
against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
contend that the petitioners along with other accused have caused
cruelty on the respondent and they also solemnized the second
marriage to the husband of the defacto complainant and they also
demanded dowry and they also compelled the defacto complainant to
abort the child and therefore she left the matrimonial home and living
with her parents. On 09.04.2017 the petitioners along with others
performed the marriage of her husband along with one Usha and
thereafter when the defacto complainant asked about the same to the
petitioners, the petitioners threatened her. Hence she gave a complaint
before the Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil and after satisfying that
prima facie materials are available as against the petitioners and others
the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case and thereby
elaborate trial is required in this case. The above said alibi is one of the
defence and the same cannot be looked into at this stage and hence the
petition may be dismissed.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is an admitted that there is no contraversion between the
relationship of the parties. These petitioners are in-laws. The first
petitioner is the brother of the respondent husband and the second
petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. According to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
respondents the petitioners as well as their family members threatened
the respondent to abort the child and caused cruelty on her. The
petitioner's contention is that they have not committed any offence as
alleged in the complaint and the allegations are only general and
omnibus allegations. Even according to the allegations no offence is
made out as against these petitioners. The first petitioner is working in
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation and the second petitioner is working
as Sales women in Kanyakumari Panchayat Preliminary Agricultural Co-
operative Society, Mahathanapuram. In order to wreck vengeance for
family dispute these petitioners have been added as parties in this
complaint. The petitioners have produced a copy of the attendance
sheet and on perusal of the same, it is seen that on the date of alleged
occurrence they were on duty. According to the complaint these
petitioners participated in the second marriage on 09.04.2017 at about
11.30 a.m., but on the same day these petitioners were on duty. The
entire complaint shows the matrimonial dispute. Even according to the
complaint the main accused is A1. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondent would contend that this defence is a matter for trial.
However inorder to prevent the abuse the process of law, this Court can
look into matter if any prima facie materials available to quash the
First Information Report and Charge Sheet. In this case, these
petitioners are only in-laws and the allegations levelled against the
petitioners are only general and omnibus allegations and even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
according to the respondent she heard about the alleged second
marriage of the main accused in this case. Further these petitioners are
in-laws and main accused is husband of the respondent i.e., in this case.
8. At this juncture the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam &Ors .vs. State of Bihar and Ors in Crl.A. No.
195 of 2022 , wherein it is held as follows:
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the
contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general
allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant
alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of
terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e.,
none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply
leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by
each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are
therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been
made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is
concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High
court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against
him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations
made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution.
9. On careful reading on the said judgment it is clear that the
general and omnibus allegations against the accused do not warrant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
prosecution. In the case on hand also the allegations are against these
petitioners are general and omnibus allegations. In view of the above
said judgment and also considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and as discussed supra it is appropriate to allow this petition.
10. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in CC.No.534 of 2018 on the file of Additional Mahila
Court(Magistrate Level) Nagercoil is hereby quashed in so far as the
petitioners concerned. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions
are also closed.
08.08.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
aav
To
The Additional Mahila Court(Magistrate Level) Nagercoil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
P. DHANABAL,J.
aav
Crl.O.P(MD).No.4822 of 2020
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
