SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mathesh vs State Rep. By on 22 February, 2019



DATED: 22.02.2019



Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2024 of 2016
Cr.M.P.(MD)No.1034 of 2016


2.Punitha … Petitioners


1.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
(Crime No.9/2015)

2.Nirmaladevi … Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call

for the records pertaining to C.C.No.366 of 2015, pending on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and quash the same, as against this


For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rameshkumar

For Respondents : Ms.M.Ananthadevi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R.1
for Mr.P.Sureshkumar for R.2


The petitioners before this Court are accused nos.2 3 in C.C.No.366

of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur and they have

filed this petition to quash the proceedings pending as against them in C.C.No.

366 of 2015, which was initiated based on the complaint lodged by the second

respondent as against this petitioners and another for the offence punishable

under Sections 498A, 109 506(i) IPC.

2. According to the second respondent / defacto complainant, the

first accused, one Shanmugam @ Samuvel is her husband and the marriage

between them was solemnised on 18.01.2011 and it was an arranged marriage.

Her husband / the first accused was running a Company by name ‘Joy Coach’ at

Karur. The second accused / first petitioner herein is the Driver cum Assistant

for the first accused. The third accused / second petitioner herein is having

illegal intimacy with the first accused.

3. The case of the defacto complainant is that the second accused

had acted as an agent in between the first and the third accused and also

interfered in the administration of the Company. When the defacto

complainant raised questions, he intimidated that she must adjust with him,

otherwise, he would sever the relationship between her and her husband.

Moreover, in order to continue his illegal relationship with the third accused,

the first accused had sent the complainant to her parents’ house, as if he is

having more work in the Company administration and it would be appropriate

for the complainant to reside at Chennai. According to the complainant, the

first accused has not even attended any phone calls, but has filed a divorce

application in order to continue his relationship with the third accused. When

the complainant called the third accused over phone, the third accused had

also intimidated that even before the marriage, they are in relationship and if

she objected their relationship, then she has to face the consequences.

Therefore, the defacto complainant has lodged the present complaint before

the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karur, on 12.08.2015 and the

same was registered in Crime No.19 of 205. The first respondent police, in

conclusion of the investigation, has also filed the final report as against the

petitioners and the first accused / defacto complainant’s husband for the

offence punishable under Sections 498A, 109 506(i) IPC on 28.09.2015.

Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Heard Mr.D.Rameshkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners,

Ms.M.Ananthadevi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first

respondent police and Mr.Senthilkumar, learned Counsel for Mr.P.Sureshkumar,

learned Counsel on record for the second respondent / defacto complainant.

5. The charge sheet has been filed as against these petitioners for

the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 109 506(i) IPC. Admittedly, the

petitioners herein are not the relatives of the first accused. For attracting an

offence under Section 498A IPC, the wife should be subjected to cruelty either

by the husband or his relatives. For better appreciation, Section 498A IPC is

extracted thus:

“498-A. 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 imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Therefore, the charge under Section 498A IPC, as against the

petitioners herein, would not stand in the eye of law.

6. A reading of the complaint would not specifically disclose any

harassment by the petitioners herein. But, there is a averment that the first

petitioner, being the Driver had interfered with the administration of the

Company and when it was questioned by the complainant, he intimidated her.

Similarly, the second petitioner is alleged to have intimacy with the first

accused and on questioning the same, the second petitioner has also

intimidated the complainant. But the date, on which the actual intimidation

was made, is not specifically averred either in the complaint or in the First

Information Report. To attract an offence under Section 506(i) IPC, the

complainant must have felt the intimidation. In the absence of any date on

which the intimidation was made, coupled with the fact that the complaint

was also filed by the complainant after the filing of the divorce petition in

IDOP.No.178 of 2014 by the husband / first accused, this Court is of the view

that the charge under Section 506(i) IPC also would not stand in the legal eyes.

7. Under the above circumstances, the charges under Sections 498A

506(i) IPC as against the petitioners herein are liable to be set aside. Once the

charges under Sections 498A, 506(i) IPC are set aside, the offence under

Section 109 IPC [Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in

consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment] will

not be attracted and therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside.

8. In such view of the matter, the proceedings pending as against the

petitioners herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, in

C.C.No.366 of 2015, stand set aside and this Criminal Original Petition is

accordingly, allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is


Index : Yes/No 22.02.2019
Internet : Yes/No




1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2024 of 2016


Leave a Reply

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

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