SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Alaguraja vs The State Represented By on 25 September, 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 25.09.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.OP(MD)Nos.11980 of 2011 and 5787 of 2014
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 and 7852 of 2017

1.Alaguraja
2.Thavasi
3.Poomayil … Petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11980 of 2011

4.Ganesan … 1st petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5787 of 2014

Vs.

1.The State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Madurai Region,
Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police,
Kamuthi Police Station,
Ramanthapuram District.
(Crime No.1 of 2010)

3.V.Pandi … Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the
records and quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.

For Petitioners 1 to 3 : Mr.T.Palanisamy
^For 4th Petitioner : Mr.G.Karnan

For R1 R2 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R3 : Mr.R.Gandhi
(For both Crl.O.Ps.)

:COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in
P.R.C.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ramanthapuram.

2.The respondent police filed a charge sheet in Crime No.1 of
2011 for the offence under Sections 306, 498A and 304 (B) of I.P.C against
the petitioners. The petitioners arrayed as A1 to A3.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
ingredients of the said offences are not made out as against the petitioners
as alleged by the prosecution. Further, he would contend that there is
absolutely no demand of dowry and it would not be said that the deceased was
harassing because of demand of dowry by the petitioners. Further, the
deceased committed suicide in her house and the reason for the death has to
be explained and the petitioners are not responsible. Therefore, they sought
for quashment of the criminal proceedings pending in P.R.C.No.11 of 2011 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanthapuram.

4.The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that
all the ingredients of the charges are clearly made out as against the
petitioners. The petitioners are none other than the husband, father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the deceased. There are specific allegations against the
petitioners and as such, the quash petition is nothing but to protect the
proceedings and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents
contended that the case has been pending for committal on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram in P.R.C stage. He would further
contend that the petitioners are the main accused in this case and therefore,
he sought for dismissal of the quash petition.

6.It is seen from the charge itself that the first accused was
presented during the marriage about 55 sovereign of jewels and other
sethanas. They lived with the second and third accused/second and third
petitioners together after the marriage. Thereafter, they demanded further
dowry for the expenses occurred during the marriage and also they compelled
the deceased to hand over all the jewels to them. Therefore, they harassed
the deceased and as such, she committed suicide on 02.01.2010. She has also
written suicide note and stated that the reason for the death is only due to
the harassment of the petitioners herein. Therefore, there is an
incriminating evidence as against the petitioners and as such, this Court is
not inclined to quash the proceedings. There is no merit to entertain this
petition to quash the charge sheet since the points raised by the petitioners
have to be established during the trial. Therefore, these criminal original
petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.

To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Madurai Region,
Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police,
Kamuthi Police Station,
Ramanthapuram District.

3.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation