Sornaammal v. State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.08.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Sorna Ammal ... Petitioner Vs.

State represented by 1.The Inspector of Police, Muthaiyalpet Police Station, Chennai.

2.Sasikala ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to call for the records in Crime No.78 of 2025 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.V.Purushothaman Reddy For R1 :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The FIR in Crime No.78 of 2025 on the file of the Muthialpet Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, is sought to be quashed in this petition. 2.The de facto complainant, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, has lodged a complaint before the respondent Police alleging that, on 01.05.2025 at 06.45 p.m., when she was coming downstairs from her house, her son by name Pravin (A1), his wife Divya (A2) and motherin-law, the petitioner herein (A3), were ready to attack her and they abused her in a filthy language. When she questioned the same, her son (A1) assaulted her with a wooden log, due to which, she sustained injuries and took treatment in the Government Stanley Hospital.

It is her further allegation that this is not the first time she is being assaulted by her son (A1) and her husband has also been assaulted and is taking treatment in the hospital. Based on the complaint, the impugned FIR came to be filed by the respondent Police.

complainant (A3) has filed the present quash petition. 3.I have perused the entire FIR. The entire allegations in the FIR are targeted only as against the son (A1) for causing injuries to the de facto complainant. Except stating that her mother-in-law (A3), the petitioner herein, was also present at the time of incident, no other serious allegation has been made as against the petitioner. All the overt acts are attributed only as against A1. Therefore, let the Investigation Officer complete the investigation and proceed as against the son (A1) alone. No coercive steps shall be taken as against A2 and A3.

4.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

19.08.2025 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Muthaiyalpet Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

mkn 19.08.2025