Madras High Court
Santhi vs The State Through on 5 March, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11898 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11898 of 2022
1.Santhi
2.Ayyathurai
3.Selvaraj ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State through
the Sub Inspector of Police,
Kulasekaram Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District.
Crime No.4 of 2022
2.Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records in the case in C.C.No.59 of 2022 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pathmanabhapuram,
Kanyakumari District and quash the same.
For petitioners : Mr.Punitha Devakumar
For R-1 : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
For R-2 : Mr.D.Anbarasu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11898 of 2022
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.59 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Pathmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, insofar as
the petitioners are concerned.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity
between the petitioners and the second respondent / defacto complainant,
the petitioners herein attacked the second respondent / defacto
complainant with hands and threatened him with dire consequences and
abused him by using filthy language. Hence, the second respondent
herein made a complaint before the first respondent Police and the first
respondent Police has registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2022 against the
petitioners and the respondent Police has conducted investigation. After
completing investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram and the learned
Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance in C.C.No.59 of 2022 for the
offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506 (i) IPC and
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and there
is no specific allegation made against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11898 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. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
6. 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 the petitioners 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 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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11898 of 2022
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or
scope to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.59 of 2022 pending on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pathmanabhapuram,
Kanyakumari District. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that this Court may consider to dispense 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 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.
05.03.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TSG
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11898 of 2022
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Padmanabhapuram,
Kanniyakumari District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Kulasekaram Police Station,
Kanniyakumari 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.11898 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
TSG
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11898 of 2022
05.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
