Madras High Court
Biresh Rodrigo vs Mary Minitha on 3 December, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.20965 OF 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.12.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20965 of 2015
and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
Biresh Rodrigo ... Petitioner/4th Respondent
Vs.
Mary Minitha ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the
petition filed by the respondent before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin as M.C.No.8 of 2015 and quash the
same as against this petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
For Respondent : M/s.Jessi Jevapriya,
for Mr.G.Aravindan.
***
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/4
2 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.20965 OF 2015
ORDER
The petitioner is figuring as the fourth respondent in M.C.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi.
2. It was instituted by the respondent herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2003.
3. The petitioner is the husband of the sister-in-law of the respondent herein. It is seen that the petitioner was not part of the shared household.
4. The Madras High Court in the decision reported in 2017 (5) CTC 515(Santineer Vincent Rajkumar V. R.Rejitha) held as follows:-
“22. When the complainant is not living under the same roof, Domestic Violence Act will not be attracted. I say so, by drawing inspiration from the parameter http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 3 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.20965 OF 2015 for scrutinizing such complaints as elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another V. State of Jharkhand and another, 2010 (7) SCC 667. I deem it appropriate to extract paragraph 35 in Preeti Gupta's case, which reads as follows:
'35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these Complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with Matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of Husband's close relations who had been living in http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 4 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.20965 OF 2015 different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the Complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the Complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.'
5. The law laid down by the Madras High Court in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The respondent's counsel states that the petitioner had been threatening her. The petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner did nor do so and in any event, he would not do so.
6. Recording the said statement, the impugned proceedings stand quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned. The criminal original petition stands allowed on these terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.12.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
pmu
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/4
5 CRL.O.P.(MD)NO.20965 OF 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
pmu
To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20965 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 03.12.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 5/4