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