SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

M. Muthu Ruvi vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 October, 2019

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 22.10.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

1. M. Muthu Ruvi

2. M. Periapandiyammal

3. M. Muthukumar

4. Suresh Kumar

5. S. Divya … Petitioners

-Vs-
1.The Inspector of Police
Ottanchathiram Police Station,
Dindigul District
in Crime No. 10 of 2016

2. Nishanthi … Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the
proceedings in C.C.No. 205 of 2017 pending on the file of the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
For R1 : Mr.R.Anandharaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance

http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.205 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District, for the offences under Sections,

498A, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C.

2. There are totally eight accused, in which, the petitioners

are arrayed as A3, A4, A6, A7 and A8. On the complaint lodged by

the second respondent a case has been registered in Crime No.10 of

2019 by the first respondent for the offences under Sections, 498A,

406, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C.

3. The crux of the allegation is that the marriage was

solemnized between A1 and the second respondent on 09.06.2008.

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

presented jewels and other ornaments along with household

articles. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children. In

the year 2009, marriage was solemnized between the sister of the

second respondent/Vinothini and the fourth petitioner herein.

Thereafter, the said Vinothini died and as such the fourth petitioner

got married with one Divya, who is none other than the daughter of

A5. It is also seen that the petitioners 1 to 4 are in-laws of the

http://www.judis.nic.in
2/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

second respondent. Even according to the case of the prosecution,

the petitioners are residing in separate house along with their

respective family members, the entire allegation is alleged as

against the first accused. In so far as the petitioners are concerned

they only instigated the first accused to harass the second

respondent herein. Further alleged that all the accused persons

refused to return jewels and Education certificate to the second

respondent. Except these allegations, there is no other allegation to

attract any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is also

seen from the statement of the witnesses that there is no evidence

to attract any other charge as against the petitioners. The entire

allegations are bailable and no specific averments or allegations

made against the petitioners herein. In the dispute between the

husband and wife normally the wife implead all the family members

in the complaint. In the case on hand, without even conducting

enquiry, the first respondent mechanically filed the charge sheet as

against all the family members without even iota of evidence to

attract the evidence as alleged by the prosecution. In this regard, it

is relevant to Section 498-A, which reads as follows:

498A: Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty :- Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with

http://www.judis.nic.in
3/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation —For the purpose of this section, “cruelty”
means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

4. Insofar as the charge under Section 498-A of IPC, the

prosecution did not prove the same. As discussed above there is no

clinching evidence that the accused demanded any dowry from the

defacto complainant’s family. In view of the above, this Court is of

the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under

Section 498-A of IPC against the accused persons.

5. Insofar as the offences under Section 294(b) and Section506(i)

I.P.C are concerned there is absolutely no allegation even in the

complaint and no one has spoken about the allegation to attract the

offences under Sections 294(b) and Section506(i) I.P.C. Therefore, the

http://www.judis.nic.in
4/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

entire proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and

cannot be sustained as against the petitioners herein.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and

the proceedings in C.C.No. 205 of 2017 pending on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District, is

hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners /A3, A4, A6, A7, A8 are

concerned.

7. Insofar as the other accused are concerned, the trial Court

is directed to complete the trial in C.C.No.205 of 2017 within a

period of six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this

order. It is made clear that any of the observation made by this

Court as against the petitioners should not influence the mind of the

trial Court and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

22.10.2019
Ls

http://www.judis.nic.in
5/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.

Ls

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Ottanchathiram,
Dindigul District.

2.The Inspector of Police
Ottanchathiram Police Station,
Dindigul District.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.779 of 2018

22.10.2019

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