SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

O.Meyyan vs The Inspector Of Police on 8 April, 2019

1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 08.04.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

CRL.O.P.(MD)Nos.5184 and 5185 of 2019
and
CRL.M.P.(MD)Nos.3264 and 3265 of 2019

1.O.Meyyan
2.M.Navaneetha Krishnan
3.K.Vel Mani … Petitioner / Accused Nos.2 to 4
in both petitions
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station-Melur,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.20 of 2018). … 1st Respondent in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5184 of 2019 / Complainant
1.The Inspector of Police,
Melur Police Station,
Madurai District.
(Crime No.1220 of 2017). … 1st Respondent in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5185 of 2019 / Complainant

2.Vanitha … 2nd Respondent in both petitions /
Defacto Complainant

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

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5184 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition is
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the
records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.20 of 2018
dated 08.10.2018 on the file of the first respondent for offences under
Sections 294(b), 498(A) IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act, 2002 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and quash the same as
illegal against the petitioners alone.

PRAYER in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5185 of 2019: Criminal Original Petition is
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the
records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.1220 of
2017 dated 29.11.2017 on the file of the first respondent for offences under
Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and quash the same as illegal against the
petitioners alone.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
(In both petitions)
For R1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
(In both petitions)

COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed to quash the First Information

Reports in Crime Nos.20 of 2018 and 1220 of 2017 on the file of the first

respondent police insofar as these petitioners are concerned.

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

2.The case of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant /

second respondent herein is the wife of the first petitioner and the

petitioners 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second

respondent. The second respondent got married to the first accused on

13.04.2014. Thereafter, they blessed with one female child. Before the

marriage, request of marrying the second respondent was denied by the

father of the second respondent on the ground that the first accused did not

have Government job, he was only working in private school. After securing

the Government job, again the first accused approached the father of the

second respondent. Considering the job secured by the first accused, the

said marriage was performed on 13.04.2014. Taking vengeance against the

father of the second respondent, the petitioners herein and other accused

person joined together and attacked the second respondent, hence, she

sustained injuries and lodged the complaint, in which, the Law Enforcing

Agency has registered the case in Crime No.1220 of 2017. The defacto

complainant’s father passed away on 12.05.2015 and the petitioners joined

together and demanded retirement benefits of the second respondent’s

father, for which the second complaint was lodged, in which, the Law

Enforcing Agency has registered the case in Crime No.20 of 2018.

Challenging the same, the present petitions have been filed.

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

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there

were two complaints, with regard to the matrimonial dispute. However, the

first accused / husband of the petitioner herein has also filed divorce

petition in H.M.O.P.No.339 of 2017. Since the defacto complainant / second

respondent has not appeared before the Family Court, the Family Court

granted an ex-parte order in favour of him. Subsequently, in order to wreck

vengeance, the present two complaints have been lodged.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent police would submit that the defacto complainant made specific

allegation against the petitioners and it is only an information to the Law

Enforcing Agency. Therefore, the Law Enforcing Agency investigated the

matter and filed final reports if allegation made out during the

investigation. There is no substantial ground to quash the First Information

Reports.

5.Even a bare perusal of the complaints clearly reveals that with

regard to the offence committed by the petitioners and others, there is a

specific averment available in the First Information Report against the

petitioners.

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

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

not inclined to interfere with the First Information Reports at this stage.

Since, the FIR discloses the commission of offence, the same cannot be

quashed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [(1992) [1] SCC 335].

7.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that a direction may be issued to the respondent police to complete the

investigation and file the final report within a stipulated time.

8.Considering the limited request made by the petitioners, this

Court is inclined to issue a direction to the Law Enforcing Agency.

Accordingly, the Law Enforcing Agency is directed to expedite the

investigation and complete the same within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9.Accordingly, this criminal original petitions are dismissed with

the above direction. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.

08.04.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Myr

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

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Myr
To

1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station-Melur,
Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police,
Melur Police Station,
Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

CRL.O.P.(MD)Nos.5184 and 5185 of 2019

08.04.2019

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