Madras High Court
Selvakalaiyarasu vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 1 October, 2018
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl OP(MD)No.19432 of 2016
and
CrlMP(MD)No.9752 of 2016
1.Selvakalaiyarasu
2.Algammal
3.Isakkiyappan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Sathankumalm Police Station,
Stathankumal,
Tuticorin District.
2.Shanmugasundaram ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,
to call for the entire records pertaining to the Crime No.217 of 2016 dated
30.03.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent Police and quash the same as
illegal.
!For Petitioners : Mr.T.Vadivelan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl Side)
For Respondent No.2 : No appearance
:ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.186 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam.
2.A reading of the final report would reveal that the petitioners are said to have entered into the house of the de facto complainant and have abused her in filthy language and have also threatened her. Therefore, a final report has been filed for the offence under Sections 294(b), 448 and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.
3.It is seen from records that there is already a family feud pending between the parties and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, a false case has been given against all the family members of the petitioners. The learned Counsel would further submit that there was already a complaint pending against the de facto complainant given by the petitioners on 03.08.2015 in Crime No.346 of 2015 and in order to wreak vengeance, the subsequent complaint has been given by the de facto complainant against the petitioners only to force the petitioners to withdraw the complaint given against the de facto complainant.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the final report and the statement given by the witnesses will attract the offences for which final report has been filed by the respondent Police.
5.It can be clearly seen that there was already a family feud between the parties. That apart, there was a complaint pending against the de facto complainant, which was given by the petitioners on 03.08.2015. Subsequently, on 12.10.2015, the de facto complainant has chosen to give the present complaint, which has resulted in filing of the final report.
6.In this case, even a reading of the final report and the statement given by the witnesses do not attract the provisions for, which the final report has been filed.
7.That apart, the very complaint itself is attended with mala fides, which has been given only to wreak vengeance against the petitioners, in order to withdraw the complaint.
8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the final report in CC No.186 of 2016, on the file of the respondent Police is hereby quashed. Consequently, CrlMP(MD)No.9751 and 9752 of 2016 are closed.
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sathankumalm Police Station, Stathankumal, Tuticorin District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.