IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.16878 of 2017
Crl.M.P.Nos.10374 10375 of 2017
1. Mrs.Molly Abraham
2. Prize Abraham … Petitioners
1. State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Woman Police Station,
(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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
N. ANAND VENKATESH. J,.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Internet: Yes / No
Index: Yes / No
1. The Additional District Judge (Mahila Court),
2. The Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Woman Police Station,
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
Crl.O.P.No.16878 of 2017