Jude Domnic Savio v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.11235 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.6462 of 2022 1.JUDE DOMNIC SAVIO 2.CATHERIN ... Petitioners Vs.

z.The State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police W9 - Villivakkam - All Women Police Station Chennai 600 049 (Cr. No.10 of 2021) 2.Reginsangeetha ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2021 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women's Police Station, Villivakkam and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Muralikrishnan For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Page No.1 of 6

Mr.M.Mohanasundaram for R2

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2021, for the offence u/s.498(A) and 506(2) I.P.C. pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women's Police Station, Villivakkam and quash the same. 2.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, though there are some allegations against the 1st petitioner / A1, the 2nd petitioner viz. mother-in-law has been roped unnecessarily except the general allegation that she has not prevented her son and also asked the defacto complainant to go out of the house, no other allegations are found against the 2nd petitioner in the F.I.R.. 3.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that as far as the 1st petitioner / A1 is concerned, there are serious allegations and he added that the petitioners would be called only for investigation. 4.Heard Mr.L.Muralikrishnan, the learned counsel for the Page No.2 of 6

petitioners, Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent police and Mr.M.Mohanasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 5.Normally, this Court will not interfere with the quashing of F.I.R. during the pendency of the investigation, unless there are serious allegations. At the same time, when the very F.I.R. itself is registered without any basis against the in-laws and they are being roped unnecessarily due to matrimonial dispute, the Court can very well quash such F.I.R.

6.A perusal of the F.I.R. shows the allegations only against the husband / 1st petitioner herein and except the sentence that the mother-inlaw asked the defacto complainant to go out of the house, no other allegations are made out against the 2nd petitioner to conduct investigation in this aspect.

7.In such view of the matter, continuing the F.I.R. against the 2nd Page No.3 of 6

petitioner is nothing but mere an abuse of process of law. Accordingly F.I.R. in Crime No.10 of 2021, registered for the offence u/s.498 (A) and 506(2) I.P.C. as against the 2nd petitioner, on the file of the 1st respondent police is hereby quashed. The F.I.R. in Crime No.10 of 2021 shall continue as against the 1st petitioner / A1.

8.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01.07.2022 kas Index: Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order Page No.4 of 6

To.

1.The Sub Inspector of Police W9 - Villivakkam - All Women Police Station Chennai 600 049 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Chennai - 600 104.

Page No.5 of 6

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

kas CRL.O.P.No.11235 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.6462 of 2022 01.07.2022 Page No.6 of 6