SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajamohan vs The State Represented By on 21 February, 2019



DATED: 21.02.2019



Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2640 of 2019
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1464 and 1465 of 2019

2.Sathyamoorthy … Petitioners


1.The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Police Station,
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


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.

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


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



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.

Index: Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No



The Inspector of Police,
AWPS, Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2640 of 2019
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1464 and 1465 of 2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2023 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