Madras High Court
Selvaraj vs The State Rep By on 1 March, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11530 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.11530 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.7273 & 7274 of 2022
1.Selvaraj
2.Rajesh
3.Vasantha Karthi ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2 & 8
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thiruparankundram, Madurai. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Ponmani ... 2nd Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.421 of 2021
on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, and quash the same
in respect of these petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2 & 8.
For petitioners : Mr.SGL.Rishwanth
For R1 : Mr.P.Kottaichamy
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.P.Balamurugan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11530 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.421 of 2021 pending on the file of the Additional
Mahila Court, Madurai, against the petitioners herein.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second petitioner
and the defacto complainant are the husband and wife. The first
petitioner is the father-in-law and the third petitioner is the brother-in-
law of the defacto complainant. The marriage was solemnized between
the second petitioner and the defacto complainant on 03.06.2011. At the
time of marriage, the defacto complainant was given 96 sovereigns of
gold jewels and household articles worth about Rs.3 lakhs as sridhanas.
Further, 5 sovereigns of gold chain was also given to the second
petitioner. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two female children.
From the date of marriage, the petitioner has not taken care of the defacto
complainant and the children properly. Further, the petitioners along with
other family members abused the defacto complainant in filthy language
and harassed her by demanding the additional dowry. Thereby, the
defacto complainant made a complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency
and the same was registered in Crime No.24 of 2019 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC. After completion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11530 of 2022
of investigation, the Law Enforcing Agency, field a final report before
the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, for the alleged offence punishable
under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) & 34 of IPC and the same was taken
on file in C.C.No.421 of 2021. Challenging the same, this petition has
been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioners have filed a petition for quashing the case
instituted by the second respondent/complainant. However, he requests
this Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners
before the Court below.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
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 he is subjected to due trial
as sufficient opportunity would be given to the petitioners to put forth
their defence. The petitioners cannot be let by quashing the charges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11530 of 2022
framed against them as that would completely undermine the alleged act,
which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against them. Useful
reference in this regard can be made 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 C.C.No.421 of 2021, pending on the file of the Additional
Mahila Court, Madurai. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
7. 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 of 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
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11530 of 2022
To
1. The Additional Mahila Court,
Madurai,
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thiruparankundram, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11530 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11530 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.7273 & 7274 of 2022
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
