V.Rajendran v. The Protection Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 26.06.2015 DELIVERED ON : 01.07.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.No.25185 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014 1.V.Rajendran 2.R.Chitra ... Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2 Vs 1.The Protection Officer Domestic Violence Act 2005 O/o District social Welfare Office Namakkal, Namakkal District.

2.R.Revathi ... Respondents/Petitioner Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in CMP No.2956 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathivellore, pending trial and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar For R1 : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.R.Manickavel

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records in CMP No.2956 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathivellore, pending trial and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. It is seen that Revathi and Vinoth Kumar were married on 10.03.2006 and they have a child through the marriage. After https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

marriage, Revathi went to Singapore with Vinoth Kumar. Thereafter, they came to India and serious differences cropped up and they got estranged. Vinoth Kumar filed divorce proceedings against Revathi in HMOP No.34 of 2012 and the said petition was dismissed for default. Thereafter, he went to Singapore and his whereabouts were not disclosed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no serious allegations against the petitioners, who are Revathi's parents-in-law.

5. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre and Vinoth Kumar did not appear for mediation. The petitioners seem to have represented before the Mediation Centre that they do not know the whereabouts of their son. This Court is unable to buy this assertion. It is obvious that the petitioners in order to protect their son are taking a very specious stand that they do not know about his whereabouts. The second respondent is now living with her daughter in her parents' house without any maintenance. This Court finds that there are sufficient allegations in the complaint for the proceedings to take its logical conclusion. In the result, the petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms To 1.The Protection Officer Domestic Violence Act 2005 O/o District social Welfare Office Namakkal, Namakkal District.

2.District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathivellore.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.R.Manickavel, Advocate, S.R.No.32430 Crl.O.P.No.25185 of 2013 CTK(CO) CA(07/07/2015) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/