SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Elavarasan vs The Inspector Of Police on 26 September, 2019

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 26.09.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8750 of 2018

1.Elavarasan
2.Thirumoorthi
3.Annamayil … Petitioner/Accused
-Vs-
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Tirumangalam,
Madurai District,
Crime No.73 / 2015. … 1st Respondent/Complainant

2.Mariyammal … 2nd Respondent/Defendant
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records comprised in C.C.No. 46
of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Tirumangalam, and to quash the same as devoid of merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
For R1 : Mr.R.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : No Appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, challenging the

proceedings in C.C.No. 46 of 2018, on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam.

http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the second respondent lodged a complaint before the respondent

police alleging that the petitioners have sold her entire jewels and

the first accused without going to any job, abused and torture her.

Further, all the accused have demanded dowry from the defacto

complainant and also criminally intimidated her, to give the jewels.

Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the

petitioners. Based on the receipt of the complaint, the first

respondent registered a case in Crime No.73 / 2015 for the

punishable offence under Sections 498 (A), 406, 294 (b), 506 (i) of

SectionIPC. After completing the investigation, they filed the final report in

C.C.No. 46 of 2018.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that the second respondent also filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.

15/2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,

Tirumangalam. Further, she also initiated the proceedings under

the SectionDomestic Violence Act in D.V.O.P.No.3 of 2016 before the same

Magistrate Court. Further, the first petitioner also filed a petition for

restitution of conjugal right in H.M.O.P.No.100/2015 before the

learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Aruppukottai. Pendency of these

proceedings, the petitioners and the second respondent entered into

http://www.judis.nic.in
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018

compromise and filed a joint compromise memo on 24.04.2017 in

the proceedings of Domestic Violence complaint as well as the

Maintenance Case on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Tirumangalam. Based on the joint compromise memo, both the

above said petitions in M.C.No.15 / 2015 and D.V.O.P.No.3 / 2016

on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam were

closed. He also submitted that the divorce petition also allowed on

27.04.2017 infavour of the first petitioner based on the compromise

memo in H.M.O.P.No.472 / 2017 on 27.04.2017. Therefore, the

entire matter has been settled between them. The second

respondent have no objection to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.

46 / 2018. Therefore, he prayed for quash the entire proceedings

in C.C.No.46 / 2018.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

would submit that on the complaint lodged by the second

respondent, the case has been registered in Crime No.73 / 2015.

for the offence under Sections 498 (A), 406, 294 (b), 506 (i) of SectionIPC

against the petitioners. After the completion of investigation, the

respondent police filed a final report and the same was taken

cognizance in C.C.No.46 / 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Tirumangalam. There are totally three accused. All the

http://www.judis.nic.in
3/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018

petitioners arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. The case is pending for

trial and the matter is posted for appearance of the petitioners. He

further submitted that based on the joint compromise memo, the

maintenance case as well as the divorce petition were closed.

5. Though, the notice was served to the second respondent

none appeared on behalf of the second respondent by person or

through counsel.

6. Heard Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr.R.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government

Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.

7. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3. The first petitioner

is the husband. The second and third petitioners are in-laws of the

second respondent herein. After marriage, since there was a family

dispute between the first petitioner and the second respondent,

they are living separately. Thereafter, the second respondent, filed

a maintenance case as well as the Domestic Violence Complaint as

against the petitioners. The first petitioner also filed a divorce

petition as against the second respondent. Pending those

proceedings, the petitioners and the second respondent entered into

http://www.judis.nic.in
4/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018

a compromise and filed a joint compromise memo on 24.04.2017

and the same was recorded. Accordingly, all the proceedings were

closed. In respect of the divorce petition, based on the joint

compromise memo, divorce has been granted in favour of the first

respondent herein. Though, there is no sub clause in the joint

compromise memo with regard to withdrawal of the criminal case

pending as against the petitioners, in view of the joint compromise

memo, the maintenance case, domestic violence complaint and the

divorce petition were disposed of. Therefore, the pendency of the

present criminal proceedings as against the petitioners would not

serve any purpose. Since, the second respondent does not want to

proceed against the petitioners in the present proceedings. As such,

the petitioners need not go for ordeal of the trial and the entire

proceeding are clear abuse of process of law.

8. In view of the above observations, this Criminal Original

petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No. 46 of 2018, on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirumangalam, is hereby

quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.09.2019
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
dss

http://www.judis.nic.in
5/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.

dss

To

1.The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Tirumangalam.

2.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19354 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8750 of 2018

26.09.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in
6/6

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