1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P. No.1389 of 2011 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1 2 of 2011
Deepa .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by the Inspector of Police,
W-19, All Women Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.04 of 2010).
2.Jagathambika .. Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pending on the file of the learned IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.8185 of 2010 and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : SectionM/s.V.Paarthiban
For R1 : M/s.S.Thankira
Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
For R2 : No Appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.8185 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.It is the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is A3 in
Crime No.277 of 2010 on the file of the 1 st respondent for the offence under
Sections 498(A), Section406, Section506 (i) and 294(b) of SectionIPC. The allegation as against the
petitioner/A3 is that the petitioner was working along with A1 in Veterinary
Clinic, so the petitioner/A3 instigated A1 to cause harassment to the 2nd
respondent.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there
was no such relationship between the petitioner and the petitioner/A3 and the
1st accused were merely a friends and they were working in the same
Veterinary Clinic. The 2nd respondent has given a false complaint. The learned
counsel would also submit that based on the allegations made in the final
report, no offence has been made out as against the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme of Court in the case of “U.Suvetha
Versus State by the Inspector of Police and another reported in (2009) 6
SCC 757” the offence under Section 498A of IPC is held as follows:-
“In the First Information Report except at one
place the appellant has been described by the First
Information as “girlfriend” of her husband and only at
the end the word “concubine” has been used. The core
question which arises for consideration is as to whether
the “girlfriend” would be a “relative of husband of a
woman” in terms of Section 498-a of the Penal Code.”
5.Admittedly, the case is that the petitioner is not a relative to the
other accused. Hence, the petitioner could not be charged and proceeded for
the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, he prayed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.8185 of 2010 against the petitioner.
6.The learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] would submit that in
this case all the witnesses have been examined and the case is posted for final
arguments on 21.08.2019.
7.The issues that have been raised by the learned counsel for the
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
petitioner has to consider only in the trial. This Court is not in a position to
appreciate these facts and does not want to interfere with the proceedings at
this stage and it is left open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions
before the Court below in the trial.
8.In the result this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.08.2019
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
W-19, All Women Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
M.NIRMAL KUMAR.,J
vv2
Crl.O.P.No.1389 of 2011
07.08.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
