Madras High Court
Malathi vs The State Represented By on 6 September, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4721 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRL.O.P (MD) No.4721 of 2023
and
CRL.M.P (MD) Nos.4150 and 4547 of 2023
1. Malathi
2. Arumuga Thevar ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirunelveli Rural,
Tirunelveli District.
Cr.No.5/2021.
2. Subbulakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
praying to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in C.C.No.
2401/2022 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court-III,
Tirunelveli and quash the same.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4721 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr. Suresh Manickam S
For R1 : Mrs.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.N.Tamilmani
ORDER
This criminal original petition is filed seeking to quash the charge
sheet in C.C.No.2401 of 2022, pending on the file of the learner Judicial
Magistrate No.3, Tirunelveli.
2.On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the case arises out of
Crime No.5 of 2021, on the file of the All Woman Police Station,
Tirunelveli Rural, was registered on the complaint of the daughter-in-law of
the petitioners.
3.The case of the defacto complainant is that earlier, her husband and
his parents had taken her jewels and sent her out of the matrimonial house.
The husband and his parents were teasing her for being ugly and threatening
that he would marry some other girl. In the said situation, the husband got
married to the second accused and his parents also played a part in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
marriage. When the defacto complainant visited her matrimonial house, the
husband, his parents and the second wife, all of them hit the defacto
complainant and caused physical torture. On the strength of the said
allegations, the case in Crime No.5of 2021, was registered for the offences
under Sections 498(A), 417, 494, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC and Section 4 of
TNPHW Act r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation,
the charge sheet is laid, in which, the petitioners being the parents of the
husband of the defacto complainant are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4.
Moreover, the present petition is filed by the petitioners, who are accused
Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the charge sheet.
4.Mr. S.Suresh Manikam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner firstly would submit that there is absolutely no role which is
played by the petitioners in the alleged second marriage. The allegations as
against the petitioners are very vague. Except the general allegations, there
is no specific material that the petitioners only took away the jewels or that
they performed the marriage of the first accused with the second accused.
According to them, the entire case is fictitious, there was no second
marriage at all and the allegations are absolutely false. Therefore, on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
strength of the false allegation, if the entire family members are roped in the
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Neelu Chopra and
another Vs Bharti, reported in (2010) 1 SCC, has held that roping in the
aged parents would amount to abuse of process of law. The learned Counsel
would also further rely upon the judgment rendered in the case of Geeta
Mehrotra and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported
in 2012 (10) SCC 741 that a mere casual references of the name, without
ascribing the specific role and overt act would not be enough to prosecute
the family members. The learned counsel would further rely upon the
judgment rendered in the case of Seenivasan Vs. the Sub Inspector of
Police and another reported in 2009 (8) SCC 642 that such frivolous
complaints should not be allowed to be continued and this court should
interfere with it.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the
case has been duly investigated and on the strength of the materials only it
is charge sheeted. The defacto complainant/L.W.1 had spoken about the acts
committed by the petitioners and therefore, this is not a case for interference
by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Mr.N.Tamil Mani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
defacto complainant taking this Court through the relevant material, would
submit that there are specific averments against the petitioners and the
witnesses have spoken about the same. Therefore, he would submit that this
court should not interfere.
7.I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the
material records of the case.
8.On a perusal of the statement given by the defacto complainant and
also the other witnesses, which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it
is seen that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners that they
were involved in snatching away her gold jewels and also causing physical
and mental cruelty on the defacto complainant.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire
episode as to the second marriage itself is false.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.The question, whether the second marriage is true or false cannot
be gone into in this quash petition. The truth or otherwise has to come out
only during the trial. When the petitioners' son having the subsistence of
the marriage is alleged to have been again married to the second accused
and all of them living in the same roof, prima facie as per the averment
made by the defacto complainant/wife, there are materials to proceed as
against the petitioners also. It cannot be said that on bald allegations the
family members are roped in.
11.Therefore, leaving it open for the petitioners to raise all the
grounds at the time of the trial before the trial court, I am of the view that
there is no ground for this Court to interfere in exercise of the power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case.
Accordingly, with the above said liberty, the criminal original petition
stands disposed of. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
12.Considering the age of the petitioners, I'm of the view that their
presence before the trial Court for all the hearings can be dispensed with,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
except the necessary hearings that may be insisted by the trial Court. The
petitioners can be represented by a counsel on special vakalat for all the
hearings, except the hearings which are insisted by the trial Court.
06.09.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
LR
To
1.The Judicial MagistrateNo.III,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirunelveli Rural,
Tirunelveli District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
LR
06.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
