SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vijay Noble vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 September, 2019



DATED: 17.09.2019



Crl.O.P(MD)No.17580 of 2014
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

1.Vijay Noble



4.Vijela Jesudas


6.K.Victor Nelson

7.Vinod … Petitioners

1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.03/2014)

4.G.R.Vidya … Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.182 of
2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.F.Deepak

For R1 : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.M.Suresh


The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.182 of 2014

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil for the

offences under Sections 498(A), Section403, Section406 and Section506(i) of IPC and

Section 4 and 6 of DP Act.

2. The second respondent is the defacto complainant.

The marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto

complainant took place on 09.09.2011. A child was also born

through the wedlock. A martial relationship came under strain.

The wife therefore lodged a complaint before the All Women

Police Station, Nagercoil, leading to registration of Crime No.3

of 2014 for the offences under Sections 498A, Section506(i), Section403 and

Section406 of IPC r/w Section 4 and Section6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Investigation was conducted and final report came to be laid.

Cognizance of the offences was taken in C.C.No.182 of 2014.

To quash the same, this criminal original petition has been filed.

3. Even at the very outset, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners 1 to 3

namely A1 to A3 will face trial and establish their innocence

before the Court below. He wanted to press this quash petition

only as regards remaining petitioners.

4. It is seen that the first petitioner is the husband of

the defacto complainant. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the

parents of the first petitioner. The fourth petitioner is the

sister-in-law, while the fifth petitioner is the husband of the

sister-in-law. The sixth petitioner is the uncle of A1. Seventh

petitioner is said to be the brother of the first petitioner.

5. I carefully went through the statements recorded

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. I am of the view that prima facie

case has been made out only against the petitioners 1 to 3

herein. As regards the other petitioners, the allegations are

rather general in nature. Since the second respondent

perceived herself as victim, she chose to implicate all the

members of A1’s family. It is seen that the fourth petitioner

got married to the fifth petitioner-Jesudass and she is having

her own separate matrimonial home. There is absolutely no

justification in implicating the sixth petitioner who is only an

http://www.judis.nic.inuncle of A1.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the State of

Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (1992 Supp(1) SCC 335), has held

that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the complainant

has instituted the prosecution with an intention to wreak

vengeance, then the proceedings can be quashed.

The impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed insofar as

the petitioners 4 to 7 are concerned. The prosecution will

however continue against A1 to A3 namely, Vijay Noble, Milkal

and Noble.

7. A2 and A3 hail from Bangalore. The prosecution is

being conducted at Nagercoil. Hence, the personal appearance

of A2 and A3 is dispensed with. However, they must be

represented by Counsel and should appear as and when

required by the trial Court. The case is of the year 2014. It is

now stated that the case has been transferred to Additional

Mahila Court, Nagercoil (Fast Track Court No.I) and the case

has been re-numbered as C.C.No.364 of 2018. The learned

Additional Mahila Court, Nagercoil (Fast Track Court No.I) is

directed to conclude the entire proceedings on merits and in

accordance with law, within a period of five months from the

http://www.judis.nic.indate of receipt of a copy of this order. This criminal original

petition is allowed as regards A4, A5, A6, A7. This criminal

original petition is dismissed as regards A1, A2 and A3.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.




1.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.

2.The Additional Mahila Court (Fast Track Court No.I),



Crl.O.P(MD)No.17580 of 2014
M.P.(MD)No.1 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