BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1703 of 2019
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.908 and 909 of 2019
2.Jegathambal … Petitioners
1.The State represented by its
Inspector of Police,
2.Anushiya … Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the entire records connected with the case in
C.C.No.262 of 2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ambasamudram and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sathiaraj
For R1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The petitioners herein are arrived as A2 and A3 in C.C.No.
262 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistate,
Ambasamudram. They face charge of offences under Section 498A,
406, 494 and 506(1) IPC.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
certain Somasundaram is the son of the first petitioner. His sister
is Jegathambal and he is married to the second respondent
Anushiya. A1 had developed an illicit intimacy with another woman
and had eloped with her, abandoning the second respondent.
However, the second respondent had preferred a complaint and
based on which First Information Report has been registered
wherein the allegations were made against A1 and also made
against the present petitioners. He also submitted that the only
reference to the petitioners herein in the statement of the
complainant was that when she had gone to the house of the first
petitioner, both the petitioners had threatened her that they would
tell Somasundaram to kill her.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
nearest offence that is disclosed in the final report is one under
Section 506(2), but it terms out of the definition of the offence. He
submitted that under Section 506(2), the threat must be direct and
here is a case where the statement attributed to the first petitioner
is that she would tell somebody to kill the defacto complainant.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
5.This Court perused the entire materials and satisfied with
the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
allegations that could be gathered from the statement of the
defacto complainant recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, there is
no other material to indicate that the petitioners are involved in the
crime. Even the statement of P.W.1 to the extend it has disclosed
would not be considered as falling within the definition.
6.Taking an over all view of the matter this Court found that
there is no merit in the proceedings in C.C.No.262 of 2015 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistate, Ambasamudram, as against
the present petitioners and it is quashed.
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index: Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
The Inspector of Police,
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1703 of 2019
and 909 of 2019