1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2640 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1464 and 1465 of 2019
1.Rajamohan
2.Sathyamoorthy … Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Police Station,
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.3/2016) … Respondent/ Complainant
2.Pathmavathy … Respondents / Defacto complainant
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the records relating to C.C.No.150 of 2017,
pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankovil and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For R1 : Mr.V.Neelakandan
Additional Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The present petition is filed to quash C.C.No.150 of 2017
which came to be taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Sankarankovil following the final report filed by the first
respondent after investigation into a case registered in Crime no.3
of 2016 for the offences under Section 498A, 406 IPC and Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act and altered to Sections 498A, 406 IPC and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Women Harassment Act.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
originally the marriage of the second respondent with the first
petitioner took place in some time in 2002, but the case came to be
registered in the year 2016. In the following the year, the second
respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.143 of 2017 for dissolution of
marriage and she obtained an ex-parte order of dissolution of
marriage on 25.01.2018. That evidentiary material made available
by the first respondent does not have any material to frame
charges against the accused persons.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
3.The learned Additional public Prosecutor submitted that
while the First Information Report was laid against nine persons, in
the final report seven were deleted and laid against only two
accused. It is submitted that the defacto complainant / the second
respondent herein is categorical in her statement given during the
police investigation implicating the cruelty, demand for dowry
made by her husband and the same was one at the instigation of
the second petitioner.
4.This Court gave anxious consideration to the entire facts
and carefully perused the material evidences. There is no pointed
allegation as to the exact role played by the second petitioner and
this Court finds only a sweeping statement made and it is devoid of
any material particulars. However, so far as the first petitioner is
concerned there are adequate materials to frame charges against
him.
5.This Court does not find that insofar as the second
petitioner is concerned, a case is made out to quash the final
report. Therefore this petition is partly allowed and the charges as
against A2 is quashed. The learned Magistrate may apply his mind
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
N.SESHASAYEE
pnn
to the final report after hearing both the objectors as well as the
defence counsel before framing of charges.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original Petition is partly allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.02.2019
Index: Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pnn
To
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Police Station,
Sankarankovil,
Tirunelveli District.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2640 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1464 and 1465 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in