SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

K.Subaiya vs The Inspector Of Police on 15 September, 2023

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 15.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7357 of 2020

1.K.Subaiya
2.Panjavarnam …Petitioners

Vs

1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.35 of 2018)
2.S.Ambika …Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying this Court to call for the records in pertaining to
C.C.No.540 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court,
Nagercoil and quash the same as against this petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sureshkumar
For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For 2nd Respondent : No Appearance

ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.540 of 2018 on

the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020

2.According to the petitioners, the petitioners are in-laws of the second

respondent. The second respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint

before the first respondent. Based on the complaint, the first respondent police

registered a FIR in Crime No.35 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 498A,

406 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.According to the petitioners, the second respondent married A1 on

11.11.2012. At time of marriage, the parents of the second respondent

presented cash and other household articles and jewels as dowry. Thereafter,

A1 lost money in share market in online gambling. Due to that, A1 borrowed

money for higher interest from so many persons and could not repay the

money. A1 tortured the second respondent to get money from her parents.

Thereafter, the parents of the second respondent had given a sum of Rs.

14,00,000/- to A1 on different dates. In addition, the second respondent

recovered the jewels from pawn shop, which was pledged by A1 without the

knowledge of the second respondent. When the second respondent asked

about the same, A1 beaten the second respondent. At the instigation of these

petitioners, A1 demanded money from the second respondent and thereby, she

lodged a complaint. Thereafter, the case was investigated by the first

respondent and he filed final report. Based on the final report, the Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020

Mahila Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.540 of 2018. As far as these

petitioners are concerned, they are in-laws. There is not specific overt act

against these petitioners. In order to rope them in criminal case, the second

respondent has given false complaint and the same was not properly

investigated by the Investigating Officer and thereby, the case in C.C.No540

of 2018 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil is liable to be

quashed.

4.No counter was filed on the side of the respondents.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that

the second respondent has given complaint before the first respondent and

based on the complaint, the first respondent registered a FIR as against these

petitioners and another for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC

and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The first respondent

investigated the case and filed final report. Based on the final report, the

Additional Mahila Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.540 of 2018. These

petitioners are in laws of the second respondent and all the allegations are

against A1, who is son of the petitioners. As per the direction of this Court,

the case against the main accused A1 was split up and the trial was conducted

and after full trial, the main accused A1 was acquitted by the trial Court. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020

main allegations are all as against A1 and even according to the final report,

these petitioners instigated the A1 to commit such offence. The main accused

himself was acquitted by the trial Court. Therefore, the pending charge sheet

against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. Even in the judgment passed

in C.C.No.7 of 2021 before the Additional Mahila Court, there is no evidence

to show that these petitioners have instructed A1 to commit such offence.

Therefore, the pending charge sheet is liable to be quashed.

6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent

contended that already as per the order of this Court, the case against A1 was

splitting and trial was conducted before the trial Court and the trial Court

acquitted the A1. As per the charge sheet, there are prima facie materials

available as against these petitioners. These petitioners instigated A1 to

commit such offence. Hence, the petitioners have to face trial. This petition is

liable to be dismissed.

7.This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on

records.

8.On perusal of records, it is observed that there is no dispute with

regard to relationship of parties and the second respondent is none other than
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020

the daughter in law of the petitioners and she gave a complaint as against her

husband and in-laws. Based on the complaint, FIR has been registered and

thereafter, filed final report. Based on the final report, the Additional Mahila

Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.540 of 2018. As per direction of this

Court, the case against A1 was already split up and trial was commenced and

after full trial, the case was acquitted as against A1. Even according to the FIR

and final report, these petitioners instigated A1 to commit offence. The main

accused A1 was acquitted by the trial Court. These petitioners who are A2 and

A3 who alleged to have instigated A1. Even according to final report as

against these petitioners, no specific allegation and allegations are vague.

Hence, the petitioners need not face the trial without any materials. Thereby, it

is appropriate to allow this petition.

9.Therefore, as discussed above, this Criminal Original Petition is

allowed and the pending charge sheet in C.C.No.540 of 2018 on the file of the

Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil is quashed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.09.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Mrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/6
Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020

P.DHANABAL, J.

Mrn

To

1.The Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil.

2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District.

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

Crl.O.P(MD).No.15246 of 2020

15.09.2023

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

6/6

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2024 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