Seeniammal v. The Public Prosecutor

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.06.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.22965, 22966 and 22967 of 2014 Seeniammal ... Petitioner in the three cases (Accused) Vs.

The Public Prosecutor, Tirunelveli. ... Respondent (complainour) in the three cases Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22967 of 2014: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Special Case No.16/2013 on the file of the Court of the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22965 & 22966 of 2014: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Special Case Nos. 2/2013 & 13/2013 respectively on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District and quash the same. For Petitioner in all cases : Mr.C.Kuthalingam For Respondent in all cases : Ms.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.side) C O M M O N O R D E R Seeking to quash the private complaint given against the petitioner, the present petitions have been filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

3.Perusal of the complaint would show that the petitioner is said to have issued derogatory words.

The exact words is said to have been the petitioner extracted in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one submission, it is submitted that it is a case of mistaken identity. The petitioner's husband's name is Thannasi whereas in the summons issued which has been stated as Sanniyasi.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. By considering the submission, this court is not able to quash the proceedings, only on that ground. The fact that the petitioner is the headquarters speaker of a particular party is not in dispute. Merely because of this bit of discrepancy in the name of the husband, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The question as to whether the petitioner is liable to be punished for the offence alleged or not and the further question as to whether the petitioner is the very same person and she has committed the offence alleged are for the respondent to prove at the trial.

5. Hence these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed, being bereft of any particulars to prove alleged offences. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The principal sessions judge, Tirunelveli.

2.The Additional Seassion Judge, Tirunelveli. 3.The Purblic Prosecuto, Tirunelveli.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC MS.C.KUTHALINGAM, ADVOCATE IN SR NO.34166/15 pjl:

sdr:31.07.2015 :2p/6c Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.22965, 22966 and 22967 of 2014 25.06.2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/