SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

V.Nagarajan vs B.P.Thangaveni on 4 April, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL.O.P.No. 11087 of 2017
and Crl.MP.Nos. 7326 7327 of 2017

1. V.Nagarajan
2. K.Velayutham
3. V.Geetha Velayutham
4. S.Uma Sundaram … Petitioners

Vs.
B.P.Thangaveni … Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records relating to proceedings in D.V.A.No.4 of 2017 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court-III, Coimbatore and quash the same and allow the
above criminal original petition.
For Petitioners : Mr. P.K.Sabapathi
For Respondent : Mr.H.Rajasekar

ORDER

This petition is directed as against the proceedings in D.V.A.No.4 of

2017, filed by the respondent herein, on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.

2. The first petitioner is the husband and the petitioners 2 to 4 are

in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between the first petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized on 02.02.2014. Thereafter, due to matrimonial
http://www.judis.nic.in
2

disputes the respondent and her husband were living separately from the

matrimonial home. Under this circumstance, the respondent herein filed a

petition under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.A. No.4 of 2017 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore and implicated the petitioners as parties

to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act.

The said D.V.A.4 of 2017 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein

who are the husband and in-laws of the respondent pray to quash the

proceedings in D.V.A.No.4 of 2017.

3. Heard Mr.P.K.Sabapathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mr.H.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. It is seen that the relief sought for by the respondent in the

domestic violence case with regard to residential rights, compensation, etc., can

be made and claimed as against her husband, who is already a party in that

case. The petitioners 2 to 4 herein are only in-laws of the respondent and they

are living separately. As such, the protection order sought for by the respondent

herein in the domestic violence case against these petitioners 2 to 4 /in-laws,

based on the allegations, cannot be maintained, in view of the fact that the

allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioners 2 to 4 against the

respondent itself seems to be false. While that being so, there cannot be any

act of any domestic violence as defined under Domestic Violence Act against
http://www.judis.nic.in
3

these petitioners 2 to 4. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against

these petitioners 2 to 4 cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioners

2 to 4 need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

5. Insofar as the first petitioner/husband is concerned, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the complaint itself is

barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. It is seen that the respondent

had left the matrimonial home in the year 2014 itself. Thereafter she lodged

complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.7 of 2015 for the offences

under Sections 406, 498A of IPC and the charge sheet also filed. The trial Court

viz., the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur has taken cognizance in C.C.No.25

of 2016, as against the petitioners herein and the same is pending for trial. It is

also seen that the first petitioner filed divorce petition before the learned Sub

Court, Nagercoil in H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2015, for dissolution of marriage and the

same was transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore and it is pending

for trial. Thereafter the present complaint has been filed by the respondent

under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act.

6. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 Crl.L.J.309 in the case of Inderjit

Singh Grewal Vs. Sate of Punjab Anr., which reads as follows:-

“24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar
http://www.judis.nic.in
on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions
4

of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, that the
complaint could be filed only within a period of one
year from the date of the incident seem to be
preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections
28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure applicable and stand fortified by
the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo v.
Chandra Sekhar Mohanty AIR 2007 SC 2762; and
Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and Ors.
(2011) 6 SCC 508.

25. In view of the above, we are of the
considered opinion that permitting the Magistrate to
proceed further with the complaint under the
provisions of the Act 2005 is not compatible and in
consonance with the decree of divorce which still
subsists and thus, the process amounts to abuse of
the process of the court. Undoubtedly, for quashing
a complaint, the court has to take its contents on its
face value and in case the same discloses an
offence, the court generally does not interfere with
the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual
matrix of this case, permitting the court to proceed
with the complaint would be travesty of justice.
Thus, interest of justice warrants quashing of the
same.”

7. In view of the above, Sections 28 and 32 of Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 r/w Rule 15(6) of the Protection of Women
http://www.judis.nic.in
5

from Domestic Violence Rules 2006, which make the provisions of Cr.P.C.

applicable. Therefore, the respondent ought to have been filed the complaint

within a period of one year from the date of the incident.

8. Admittedly, the respondent left the matrimonial home in the year

2014 and thereafter after filing so many proceedings, she had filed this

complaint in the year 2017 only. Therefore, the above judgement squarely

applicable to the case on hand and it cannot be sustained as against the first

petitioner also.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the

proceedings in DVA.No.4 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court-III,

Coimbatore is hereby quashed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions

are closed.

04.04.2019
Internet:Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order

rts

To
The Judicial Magistrate Court-III,
Coimbatore

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

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts

CRL.O.P.No. 11087 of 2017
and Crl.MP.Nos. 7326 7327 of 2017

04.04.2019

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