Madras High Court
Lakshmi vs M.Kalaiselvi on 8 March, 2023
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 and 11988 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.11148 of 2017 and 11988 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.7639 of 2017, 7573 of 2022 and 7574 of 2022
Crl.OP(MD)No.11148 of 2017:
Lakshmi .. Petitioner/Respondent
Vs.
M.Kalaiselvi .. Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the case in D.V.O.P.No.8 of
2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur, Dindigul
District and transfer the same to any other competent Court in Karur
District.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balaji
For Respondent : No appearance
_____________
Page No. 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 and 11988 of 2022
Crl.OP(MD)No.11988 of 2022:
1.Munusamy
2.Lakshmi .. Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
M.Kalaiselvi .. Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the
Domestic Violence Proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2017 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur, Dindigul District and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Balaji
For Respondent : No appearance
COMMON ORDER
Since these petitions are arising out of the same case with
different prayer, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Vedasanthur, Dindigul District, both cases are taken up for hearing
together and disposed of by way of this common order.
_____________
Page No. 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 and 11988 of 2022
2. Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 was filed by the mother-in-
law of the respondent herein to transfer the case in D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2017
from the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedasandur, Dindigul
District to Karur. Crl.O.P(MD)No.11988 of 2022 is filed by the husband
and mother-in-law of the respondent herein to quash the proceedings of
the said DVOP. In both the cases, after withdrawal of the appearance of
the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court directed the petitioners
to take private notice and private notice was served and proof filed.
Inspite of her name printed in the cause list, nobody is appeared on
behalf of the respondent and hence, this Court, upon perusal of the
materials and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners inclined to dispose of these petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioner has life threat at the hands of the respondent and her relatives
and the same was witnessed from the averment in D.V.O.P.No.60 of 2017
in which the petitioner/mother-in-law was assaulted by the respondent
and hence there was every possibility of life threat to the petitioners.
_____________
Page No. 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 and 11988 of 2022
4. This Court not satisfied with the averment made in the
petition to transfer the case and there was no material to substantiate the
allegation that the respondent caused the apprehension to the petitioner at
the time of appearance before the Vedasandur Court. Mere averment that
there is a life threat to the petitioner at Vedasandur is not sufficient to
transfer the case to Karur.
5. In the said circumstances, this Court do not find any merit
in the transfer petition and hence, Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11988 of 2022:
6. Insofar as the quash petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11988 of
2022 is concerned, as per the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in
2022(4)MLJ(Crl)561 this petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, this
petition is dismissed. The grounds raised in this quash petition is
permitted to raise before the trial Court in the DVOP proceedings.
However, considering the age of the second petitioner, this Court is
_____________
Page No. 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 and 11988 of 2022
inclined to dispense with the appearance of the second petitioner/A3
alone. The petitioners shall not dispute the identity of the witnesses. The
petitioners shall appear before the Court in the event their presence is
insisted by the trial judge for the purpose of identification. If the
petitioners adopt any dilatorial tactics, it is open to the Trial Court to
insist for their appearance and deal with the petitioners in accordance
with the judgment of Supreme Court of India, in State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Shambunath Singh, reported in 2001 (4) SCC 667.
7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasanthur, Dindigul
District, is directed to dispose the D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2017 within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
petitioners are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings without
making any hindrance for the speedy disposal.
8. With the above direction, Crl.O.P(MD)No.11988 of 2022 is
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.03.2023
PJL
Note:Issue order copy on 19.04.2023.
_____________
Page No. 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.11148 of 2017 and 11988 of 2022
K.K.RAMAKRISHANAN, J.
PJL
To
The Judicial Magistrate,
Vedasanthur,
Dindigul District.
Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.11148 of 2017
and 11988 of 2022
08.03.2023
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
