SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Saravana Selvam vs State. Represented By on 4 April, 2019



DATED: 04.04.2019



Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2014
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

1.Saravana Selvam
5.Pandidurai … Petitioners

1. State. represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Tambaram All Women Police Station,

2.J.Vijayalakshmi .. Respondents

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, to call for the records pertaining to the Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.33 of
2014, arising out of the FIR No.18 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Tambaram and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.C.V.Shanmuganathan

For Respondent-1 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent-2 : M/s.Va.Vu.Si.Vazhakagam



This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.33 of 2014, arising out of the FIR No.18 of 2013 on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

2. The respondent police have registered a case the FIR in Crime No.18 of

2013 as against the petitioners for the offences under Sectionsections 498(A), Section406 IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant and the 1st

petitioner/1st accused are the husband and wife. The 2nd and 3rd petitioner are

the father and mother of the 1st petitioner, the 5th petitioner is the elder brother of

the 1st petitioner and the 4th petitioner is the sister-in-law of the 1st petitioner and

the 5th petitioner is the brother of the 1st petitioner. They got married on

06.06.2011 at UKR Kalayana Mandapam, Cheranma Nagar, Vilankurichi Road,

Coimbatore, according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, both of them

have stayed in Coimbatore and thereafter New Perungalathur and set up their

matrimonial life. Out of their wedlock, the 2nd respondent has be gottan a male

child on 03.05.2012. The 1st petitioner was prevented from lifting the child and

they had gone to the extent of abusing the 1st petitioner as well as his parents.

Even the 1st petitioner’s parents were not allowed to lift the child. Thereafter, the

2nd respondent informed the 1st petitioner over phone that he is permitted to visit

the child by her parents once in two weeks. During such time, she used to abuse
the first petitioner. In fact, even during the inception of marriage the 1st

petitioner’s in-laws used to visit the 1st petitioner’s matrimonial roof and created

some ugly scenes by misrepresenting to the 2nd respondent about the 1st

petitioner. They had gone to the extent of blaming the 1st petitioner as impotent.

The 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent continued their happy life in their absence.

Thereafter, the 1st petitioner’s mother-in-law has insisted the 1st petitioner to

permit her to stay along with the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. As, due to her

activity, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent’s matrimonial life was disturbed,

and therefore, the 1st petitioner has not agreed for the same. On 23.10.2012, the

1st petitioner’s in-laws have taken the 2nd respondent and also her child along with

them to Coimbatore. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner has tried to contact the 2nd

respondent over phone but his efforts ended in vain. All his efforts to bring back the

2nd respondent to the matrimonial life were ended in futile. Having left with no

other option the 1st petitioner had filed a petition in HMOP.No.262 of 2013 on the

file of Sub Court, Tambaram, seeking for restitution of his conjugal rights and the

same is still pending. Therefore, none of the petitioners have not committed any

adverse acts against the interest of the defacto complainant. In fact, in the

complaint itself the defacto complainant has totally suppressed the pendency of

HMOP.No.262 of 2013, on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram and also the receipt

of summons therein. The said complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent only

with a view to wreak vengence on the petitioners for the reasons best known to her.

Admittedly, when the 2nd respondent has been staying in her parent’s house prior

to delivery, the allegations in the FIR cannot be probable against the petitioners and
the 2nd respondent herein only based upon some misunderstanding between herself

and the 1st petitioner herein who had come forward with the allegations as found in

the FIR to attack all the petitioners. The allegations as found in the FIR do not

make out a case either under Section 406 (or) under Sectionsection 498A IPC. The

allegations is the complaint die not make out any prima facie case under the above

referred sections. Moreover, immediately after filing of HMOP.No.262 of 2013 the

same was referred to Lok Adalat at the instance of the 1st petitioner herein.

Therefore, all the records in the above case would point out that the complaint

made against the accused did not make out a prima facie case. When the offences

itself is not made out, the proceedings with FIR is nothing but an abuse of process

of law. Therefore, the complaint as it stands is liable to be rejected and the FIR

deserves to be quashed. The petitioners were driven to this Court to get

anticipatory bail orders in Criminal O.P.No.18912 of 2013 dated 01.08.2013 and also

Crl.O.P.No.20237 of 2013, dated 12.08.2013. While the matter stood before thus,

the petitioners filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.472 of 2014 on the file of this

Court seeking for the relief of quashing the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2013 dated

23.07.2013. During the pendency of the aforesaid quash petition, the first petitioner

understood that the first respondent police at the instance and behest of the second

respondent, complainant and her parents, has hurriedly filed a charge sheet before

the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Tambaram. Now, the said proceedings is

numbered as C.C.No.33 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram

and the same was closed in Crl.O.P.No.472 of 2014, dated 02.02.2014. In fact, the

petitioners came to know about the laying of the aforesaid charge sheet only at the
date of hearing of the quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.472 of 2014. Immediately, the

petitioners have applied for the certified copies of charge sheet and 161 statements

of the defacto complainant and the witnesses. Apparently, there is no independent

recording of the statements said to have been made by the witnesses and obviously

the 161 statements are recorded mechanically by the first respondent. The main

allegation of the defacto complainant and 161 statements of the witnesses 1 to 3

that on 12.06.2013 when the defacto complainant and her mother were pushed out

by the first petitioner, 3rd petitioner and 4th petitioner herein and thereafter, the

neighbours intervened and they said to have advised the petitioners 1,3 and 4.

Whereas, the 161 statement of the 4th witness did not corroborate the aforesaid

statements made by the defacto complainant and her parents and on the other

hand, the 4th witness has categorically stated that he has no knowledge about the

aforesaid incident and there will be a domestic fight between the first petitioner and

the defacto complainant which is normal in family life. Further, a plain reading of

the complaint 161 statements and the charge sheet on the fact of them, do not

make out a prima facie case against the petitioners for having dishonestly

misappropriated the alleged stridhan of the defacto complainant allegedly handed

over to the petitioners so as to attract the commission of offence of criminal breach

of trust punishable under Sectionsection 406 IPC. The case on hand, it is a classical

example of abuse of process of Court especially when the criminal proceedings

initiated by the 2nd respondent’/defacto complainant is tainted with malafide and

said complaint has been lodged with ulterior motive for wreaking vengence on the

accused. Hence, the petitioners have filed this criminal original petition to quash the
charges framed against them.


4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents

5. It is seen that the 4th petitioner is the sister-in-law of the defacto

complainant. Though the allegations are vague and bald and also general, the

offences under Section 420 and Section406 IPC are made out as against the petitioners

except fourth petitioner. There are specific allegations made out against the


6. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed

insofar as the 4th petitioner is alone. Considering the fact that the case is of the

year 2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, is directed to complete the

trial and dispose of the matter as against the other accused persons within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The other

petitioners are at liberty to raise all the points before the Trial Court. Further, the

second petitioner passed away and in respect of him all the charges got abated.

Speaking/Non speaking order


1. The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

2. The Inspector of Police,
Tambaram All Women Police Station,

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.



Crl.O.P.No.3591 of 2014
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014


Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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