Madras High Court
Patchirajan vs Murugalakshmi on 1 March, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14000 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14000 of 2022 and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.9002 of 2022
1.Patchirajan
2.Rajalakshmi
3.Kasthuri
4.Vellaichamy ... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
Murugalakshmi ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records in D.V.No.26 of 2022, on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.3,Thoothukudi and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Muthumalairaja
For R-1 : Mr.M.Pandian
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case in D.V.No.
26 of 2022, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.3,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14000 of 2022
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the de-
facto complainant and one Vijay took place on 08.09.2017. However,
since the marriage ran into rough weather, the de-facto complainant said
to have preferred a complaint against the in-laws under Section 12 of
Domestic Violence Act, which has been taken on file in CC No.102/2021
before the trial court, for quashing which, the petitioners are before this
Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners herein are separately residing somewhere and they are not
residing along with either the de-facto complainant or her husband. It is
further submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the maternal uncle and
aunt of the husband of the de-facto complainant; the petitioner No. 3 is
the mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant and the respondent No.4 is
the paternal uncle of the de-facto complainant's husband. It is further
contended that though a complaint has been preferred by the de-facto
complainant against her in-laws, the petitioners are no way connected
with the said offence and that they never interfered with the matrimonial
life of the de-facto complainant and hence, prays for interference. He
would further contend that the divorce proceedings were initiated and the
same is also pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14000 of 2022
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that
there are materials available to proceed with the case as against the
petitioners herein and at the threshold, the criminal proceedings cannot
be quashed and the charges against the petitioners have to be gone into
only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly taken the
case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice
would be caused to the petitioners, if they are subjected to due trial as
sufficient opportunity would be given to them to put forth their defence.
The petitioners cannot be let by quashing the charges framed against
them as that would completely undermine the alleged act, which is the
subject matter of criminal trial pending against him. Useful reference in
this regard can be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State
of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426).
6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or scope to
quash DV No.26 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court No.3, Thoothukudi. Accordingly, this petition, being
devoid of merits, is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14000 of 2022
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
this Court may consider dispensing with the personal appearance of the
petitioners before the court below. Taking into consideration the request
as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appearance of the
petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with except for their
appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy oof the proceedings u/s
207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for
any particular reason, the presence of the petitioners is necessary, the trial
court, at its wisdom, shall direct their appearance on those days.
01.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
RR
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.3,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14000 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
RR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14000 of 2022
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
