SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dr.Mohammed Sherrif vs State Rep.By on 24 January, 2019


DATED : 24.01.2019

Crl.O.P.No.25725 of 2008
M.P.No.1 of 2008

[Orders Reserved on 23.08.2018]

1.Dr.Mohammed Sherrif
2.Mrs.Mary Sheeba Yovan … Petitioners / Accused


1. State
Inspector of Police,
W-23, All Women Police Station,
Chennai 600 014 … 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent

3.Mariyam Sherin … Respondent 2 3 / Proposed
*(R2 R3) impleaded vide
order dated 09.03.2017.

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,
praying to call for records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.1695 of
2006, on the file of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai,
quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Selvaraj

For Respondent-1 : Ms.Saratha Devi,
Government Advocate (crl.side)
For Respondents : No Appearance
(R2 R3)



This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.1695 of 2006, on the file of XVII Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

The 2nd petitioner married the 1st petitioner during the subsistence of her

marriage with the defacto complainant/second respondent herein and

therefore, the 1st petitioner is guilty of committing offences under Sections

494 497 IPC. He would further submit that the defacto complainant / 2 nd

respondent herein had spent considerable amount to the 2nd petitioner for

her visit to abroad. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has

relied on a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Agarwal Vs.

Union of India reported in (AIR 1993 SC 1637).

3. Though there is no appearance on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd

respondents herein. Keeping pending the above case, which is of nearly 10

years old, would only compound to pending of the case without any

progress. Hence, the matter is taken up for disposal, on merits, with the

materials available.


4. On perusal of the materials it is seen that the 2nd petitioner

married the defacto complainant on 23.02.1998, at Rosary Mary Church,

Kancherakoodu. Only after the marriage, the 2nd petitioner came to know

that the deefacto complainant / second respondent was already married and

that she was cheated. The defacto complainant married one Sinduja and

they have a son by name Jebin. The marriage between the 2nd petitioner

and the defacto complainant is nullity. After lodging the complaint, the 2nd

petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce and obtained a decree for divorce.

5. According to the 3rd respondent / the first wife of the 1st petitioner /

Mariyam Sherin,, the 1st petitioner / husband had ill-treated her while she

was in abroad and therefore, a case has been registered against him for the

offences under Sections 498A, 325 and 506(ii) IPC.

6. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State

would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant,

an investigation was conducted and charge sheet has been filed before the

concerned Court and is pending.

7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and

perused the materials available on record.


8. It is seen that in this case sofar seven witnesses have been

examined and 14 exhibits have been marked and the trial is in the final

stage. At this stage, the contention of the petitioners that the offence has

been committed outside India and therefore, previous sanction of Central

Government have to be obtained, is not acceptable, in view of the evidence

available, it is seen that it is continuing offence. No doubt, a part of the

offence has been committed outside India. As per Section 178 of Cr.P.C.,

the trial Court has got jurisdiction to try the case. The Judgment of the

Supreme Court reported in (AIR 1993 SC 1637) (cited supra) is not

applicable to the facts of the present case.

9. On going through the evidence it is seen that none of the witnesses

have been cross-examined and the petitioners plea that they may be

permitted to file necessary application to recall the witnesses and to

purforth their case, otherwise deprivation of their valuable rights would

cause great prejudice to them, is to be considered by the trial Court.

10. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is

dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also


Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No




1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Saidapet, Chennai,

2.Inspector of Police,
W-23, All Women Police Station,
Chennai 600 014

3.Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,




Pre-Delivery Order made in

Crl.O.P.No.25725 of 2008


Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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