Madras High Court
Sornamugi vs State Rep. By on 2 February, 2024
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.5375 & 5378 of 2022
1. Sornamugi
2. Periyammal Muthusami
3. Ramesh Muthusami
4. Priya Raja
5. Kamachi Dukaiyan
6. Dukaiyan Chinnasamy
7. Jayaraman Kandhasamy
8. Varatharasu Kandhasami
9. Periyammal Vardharasu
10. Saravanan
11. Vidhya S. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
A.W.P.S., Kallakurichi,
Kallakurichi Dt.
2. Sailaja ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the charge sheet lodged against the
petitioners in Crime No.23 of 2021 on the file of All Women Police
Station, Kallakurichi registered by the 1st respondent for the offence under
Sec.498(A), 294(b), 494, 109 of I.P.C., 1860 and Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
Mr.V.Gunasekar for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 25 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kallakurichi.
Page No.2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022
2. Heard both sides.
3. The petitioners are ranked as A2 to A12 in the F.I.R. in Crime No.23 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sec.498(A), 294(b), 494, 109 of I.P.C. and Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.25 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Kallakurichi and the same is pending. Now, the petitioners have filed this petition praying to quash the said charge sheet.
4. The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the 2 nd respondent, who is wife of A1 viz., Thangeswaran. According to her, on 18.03.2017 she got married with A1 and she gave birth to a female child in the year of 2019. In the meanwhile, there was a matrimonial dispute between them and at the instigation of family members, they were reunion and a child was born. When she went to her parents house for delivery, after some time, she came to know that her husband got married Page No.3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022 with 1st petitioner herein as second marriage and begotten a child also. Therefore, she lodged a complaint. Based on that, F.I.R. was lodged in Crime No. 23 of 2021 and subsequently, final report was also filed.
5. The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the 1 st respondent police as per the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. In fact, there was a matrimonial dispute between A1 and 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant. He would submit that all these petitioners are family members and they are no way related with the alleged dispute between them nor they concerned with second marriage. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against them. In support of his contentions, he relied on the ratio laid down in the authority held by the High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petn. No. 7931 of 2022 C/W Crl.Petn. No.7825 of 2022, in the case of Srinivasa Sagar and others vs. State, wherein in para 9 it has been held as follows :-
“9. A perusal of Sections 494, 495 and 496 of I.P.C. makes it clear that those offences can be pursued by a Page No.4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022 spouse against an erring spouse and the other members of the family or members of the extended family cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sec.494, 495 or 496 of I.P.C. Therefore, pursuing the case against the other accused for the offences punishable under Sec.494, 495 and 496 of I.P.C. is unwarranted.....................................”
6. Records perused. Admittedly, on seeing entire facts, it reveals that the marriage between A1 and 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is still in force and as on date, the 1st accused married with the 1st petitioner herein and begotten a child, however, there was no divorce obtained by A1. All the family members having known very well about the facts as per the case of prosecution. So, on seeing the facts as well as on seeing the conduct of petitioners as well as with regard to the fact of marriage of A1 along with 1st petitioner/A2, it needs detailed investigation. Hence, I do not find any irregularity in the charge sheet initiated by the 1st respondent police and this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. If at all, the family members plead innocence, they are at liberty to work out their remedy and raise all their Page No.5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022 defence before the trial court. Furthermore, the authority relied on by the petitioner's counsel in the ratio laid down by the High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petn. No. 7931 of 2022 C/W Crl.Petn. No.7825 of 2022, in the case of Srinivasa Sagar and others vs. State is not applicable to the facts of instant case. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
02.02.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rpp To
1. Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S., Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi Dt.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9216 of 2022 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp CRL.O.P.No.9216 of 2022 02.02.2024 Page No.7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis