SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

M.S.Parvatham vs State Rep By on 6 June, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.06.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

CRL.OP.No.1500 of 2015
and Crl.M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2015

M.S.Parvatham …Petitioner

Vs.

State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Women Police Station,
Mylapore, Chennai-4 ….Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the order dated 07.10.2014
in Crl.R.C.No. 10 of 2013 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai
City confirming the order dated 18.01.2013 in Crl.M.P.No. 241 of 2013 on the
file of 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and set aside the same and
discharge the petitioner herein in C.C.No.3341 of 2011 on the file of
respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed in

Crl.R.C.No.10 of 2013 confirming the dismissal of the discharge petition made

in Crl.M.P.No. 241 of 2013.

2. It is seen from records that the petitioner has been added as A4 in

the final report and she is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. The

Final Report has been filed for the offences under Section 498A, Section506 (ii) of

SectionIPC r/w Sectionsection 34 of IPC.

3. Mr.AR L.Sundaresan, the learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner submitted that there are totally four accused persons

in this case and the petitioner, who is the mother-in-law was added as A4 in

the Final Report. The learned senior counsel further submitted that a perusal

of the statement recorded from the defacto complainant would make it clear

that there are no allegations to substantiate the offence under Sectionsection 498A,

Section506 (ii) of SectionIPC r/w Sectionsection 34 of IPC as against this petitioner. The learned

senior counsel further submitted that the entire proceedings is an abuse of

process of court insofar as this petitioner is concerned.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, a strong

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

suspicion is enough and the material that is available on record makes a

strong suspicion against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has to

necessarily face the trial and establish her defence.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either

side and also the materials available on record.

6. The most important material that has to be considered by this

Court is the statement of LW1 in this case, who is the defacto complainant.

The only allegation made against the petitioner is that this petitioner and

the sister-in-law used to give ill-advice to the husband of the defacto

complainant. The other allegations made against this petitioner does not

satisfy the requirements of the term ‘cruelty’ found in Section 498A of IPC.

The section itself makes it clear that the cruelty must be of such a nature

as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or

or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.

Even though mental cruelty also falls as a component to attract the offence

under Sectionsection 498A of IPC, not every Act will satisfy the requirement, unless

the mental cruelty is to such an extent as to cause grave injury to the

victim wife.

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

7. The materials available on record does not satisfy these

requirements and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner who is

the mother-in-law is an abuse of process of Court and the same requires

interference by this Court in exercise of its Jurisdiction under section 482 of

Cr.P.C.

8. In the result, the proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.

3341 of 2011 is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

The Court below is directed to complete the proceedings in C.C.No. 3341 of

2011 as against the other accused persons within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.06.2019

Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No

mpa/uma

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

To

1. The III Additional Sessions Judge,
Chennai.

2. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet.

3. The Inspector of Police
W-22, All Women Police Station,
Mylapore, Chennai-4.

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

N.ANAND VENKATESH.J,
mpa/uma

CRL.OP.No.1500 of 2015
and Crl.M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2015

06.06.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

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