Ramesh v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA Crl. O.P. No.21477 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 1.Ramesh 2.Lakshmi 3.Parameswari ... Petitioners/Accused Vs.
1. The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police W.21, All Women Police Station Guindy,Chennai 600 032.
(Crime No.5 of 2011) ...1st Respondent/Complainant 2.Shanmugavadivu @ Radhika ...2ndRespondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.no.6336 of 2011 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mathivanan for Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran for R1 Government Advocate : Mr.R.Ganeshkumar for R2
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.6336 of 2011 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.6336/2011 before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The second
respondent/defacto complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Guindy, against the petitioners/accused herein, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(i) IPC. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, after conducting investigation filed a final report before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in C.C.No.6336/2011 against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(i) IPC.
3. In the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that all the allegations made by the defacto complainant are totally false and that though the second respondent (defacto complainant) left the matrimonial home on 14.10.2010 she has preferred the complaint only in the year 2011.
4. The learned Government Advocate would contend that the first petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court for discharging him from the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(i) IPC and the same is still pending before the said Court. He would further contend that since an order of stay has been granted by this Court, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, is unable to proceed further in C.C.No.6336/2011.
5. A perusal of the First Information Report and the final report, prmia facie, shows that there are enough materials against the present petitioners and therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.6336/2011 cannot be faulted with. The allegation that all the contentions of the defacto complainant are false is a disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not prescribe any limitation and even otherwise the proceedings cannot be quashed for delay and laches on the part of the complainant. Therefore, I do not find any reason to allow this Petition. Since the case in C.C.No.6336/2011 is pending from the year 2011, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
dna To 1.The Inspector of Police W.21, All Women Police Station Guindy,Chennai 600 032.
(Crime No.5 of 20120) 2.The IX Metropolitan magistrate, Saidapet,Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.44419 Crl. O.P. No.21477 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 MR(CO) BM 01/08/2018