SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mrs.Molly Abraham vs State Represented By on 3 January, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:03.01.2019

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.O.P.No.16878 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10374 10375 of 2017

1. Mrs.Molly Abraham
2. Prize Abraham … Petitioners

Vs.

1. State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Woman Police Station,
Mylapore, Chennai.
(Crime No.9 of 2014)

2. Minu Susan Mathew … Respondents

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.C.No.155 of
2017 in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge
(Mahila Court), Chennai in Crime No.9 of 2014 on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.John Sathyan
For R1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 :
M/s.V.Sarojini

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

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in

S.C.No.155 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Additional

District Judge ( Mahila Court, Chennai ).

2. The petitioners have been added as A2 and A3 in the final

report. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the second

respondent and the second petitioner is the brother-in-law of the

second respondent. Based on the complaint given by the second

respondent, an FIR came to be registered by the respondent police

against the husband and also these petitioners for an alleged

offence under Sections 498, 294 (b), 406, 324, 307 of IPC r/w

Section 34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the final

report has been filed before the concerned Magistrate Court and the

case was committed and taken on file by the learned Additional

District Judge (Mahila Court, Chennai) in S.C.No.155 of 2017

against all the three accused persons for an alleged offence under

Sections 498, 294 (b), 406, 324, 307 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the entire allegation made in the complaint as well as in the final

report and also the statements given by the witnesses, is only as

against A1/husband and the in-laws have been unnecessarily
http://www.judis.nic.in
3

ropped in as accused persons. The learned counsel for the

petitioners brought to the notice of this Court, the divorce petition

filed by the second respondent in O.P.No.900 of 2014 on the file of

the Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking for return of articles and also

for money, wherein the second respondent has stated about the

very same incidents that happened on 12.04.2014 and 25.04.2014.

While explaining the incident in the petition, there is absolutely no

reference made to the petitioners and the entire allegation was only

as against the husband. However, while giving the complaint and

while giving statement before the respondent police, the second

respondent has intentionally ropped in name of the first petitioner,

as if she also participated in the attack made against the second

respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further

submit that there is absolutely no material or allegation made

against the second petitioner, who is the brother-in-law and he has

been unnecessarily added as an accused in this case.

4. The learned Additional Public prosecutor representing the

first respondent and also the learned counsel for the second

respondent submitted that there are sufficient materials against

these petitioners and this Court should not interfere with the

proceedings at this stage and the petitioners must be made to face

the trial before the Court below.

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

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made

on either side.

6. A reading of the complaint as well as the statements given

by the second respondent to the Investigating Officer reveals the

fact that the entire allegations have been made only as against the

husband who has been added as A1. The second respondent has

ropped in the first petitioner/mother-in-law only on the ground that

during the incident that took place on 25.04.2014, she also joined

the husband in attacking the second respondent. However, while

reciting the very same incident before the Family Court, Ernakulam

during the year 2014, the second respondent has not even made a

whisper against the first petitioner with regard to the incident that is

alleged to have taken place on 25.04.2014. Therefore, it is very

clear that as an after-thought, the second respondent has ropped in

the first petitioner as an accused by making a general allegation

against her in the incident that is said to have taken place on

25.04.2014.

7. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, there is

absolutely no material against him. It is stated in the complaint as

well as the statement given to the Investigating Officer that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
5

second petitioner had taken away the child to his custody at the

time of the incident. Except this statement, there is no other

material or allegation made against the second petitioner.

8. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that no case has

been made out as against these petitioners in the final report. These

petitioners have been unnecessarily added as accused persons in

the final report and the Court below has taken cognizance against

these petitioners in a mechanical fashion. The continuation of the

proceedings as against these petitioners will amount to abuse of

process of Court and therefore, this Court has to necessarily

interfere with the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

9. In the result, the proceedings in S.C.No.155 of 2017, on

the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Mahila Court,

Chennai) is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners herein are

concerned. The Court below shall proceed further with the

proceedings insofar as A1 is concerned and shall complete the

proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

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

N. ANAND VENKATESH. J,.

dss

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

03.01.2019

Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes / No
Index: Yes / No
dss

To

1. The Additional District Judge (Mahila Court),
Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Woman Police Station,
Mylapore, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.

Crl.O.P.No.16878 of 2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh