SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

G.Rajasekhar vs State Represented By on 15 April, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021
Crl.MP.Nos.4456 4457 of 2021

1.G.Rajasekhar
2.G.Balaiah
3.G.Dhanalakshmi … Petitioners

Versus

1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
W-17 Sembium,
AWPS, Peravallur,
Chennai – 600 082.
(Crime No.5/2017)

2.B.Keerthi … Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to CC.No.14/2021
on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Egmore,
Chennai and to quash the final report filed by the respondent against the
petitioners.

Page No.1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021

For Petitioners : Mr.P.V.Sanjeev

For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioners/accused in CC.No.14 of 2021 who are facing trial

for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC have filed this

quash petition. The first petitioner is the estranged husband of B.Keerthi,

defacto complainant and second and third petitioners are in-laws.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that

the allegations made against the petitioners is with regard to the defacto

complainant taking up vaccination for Hepatitis, which was during

February 2016 and marriage had taken place on 25.03.2016. He further

submitted that from the reading of the complaint, it is seen that the

defacto complainant had made allegations only against her in-laws and

nothing against the petitioner. As regards the father-in-law and mother-

Page No.2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021

in-law, the learned counsel for the petitioners was relying upon the

finding given by the Mahila Court in DVC.No.421 of 2017 in the order

dated 1.2.2018. With regard to the domestic relationship, it had held that

since the first petitioner and the defacto complainant had set up a

separate house, left the second and third petitioners and living separately,

there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the second

and third petitioners. Hence, Mahila Court had clearly held that there is

no domestic relationship and there is no prima facie case made out

against the second and third petitioners.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the contrary, had

submitted that after the complaint, the case has been registered,

investigation conducted. LW1 is the defacto complainant, LW2 and LW3

are the parents of the defacto complainant. LW4 is the sister of LW1.

LW1 to LW4 had clearly stated about the mental and physical harassment

caused to the defacto complainant and as per the Section 498A of IPC,

the cruelty can be either mental or physical factor, which factum can be

decided only during trial. Hence, this is the fact that can be decided only

Page No.3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021

after evidence is recorded and not in a quash petition. Further LW5 is a

family friend, who corroborates the evidence of LW1 to LW4. Hence he

opposed the quash petition.

4. Considering the submissions made on either side, it is seen that

the petitioners are proceeded against 498A of IPC and the points raised

by the petitioner are factual in nature. It is to be decided only after full

fledged trial and not in a quash petition. In view of the same, this

Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected

Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to

dispense with the presence of the second and third petitioners. Taking

into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence

of the second and third petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be

represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the

same day, they are examined in Chief. The second and third petitioners

Page No.4 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021

shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under

Section 313 Cr.P.C and at the time of passing of the final judgment.

15.04.2021

Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
mbi

To

1.The Metropolitan Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai

2.The Inspector of Police,
W-17 Sembium,
AWPS, Peravallur,
Chennai – 600 082.

3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.

Page No.5 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

mbi

Crl.OP.No.6686 of 2021
Crl.MP.Nos.4456 4457 of 2021

15.04.2021

Page No.6 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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