Saranya v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12674 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD) No.9871 of 2025

1. Saranya

2. Sarathkumar

3. Suganya ... Petitioners Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Trichy District.

Crime No. 88/2024.

2.Nallan

...Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No. 88/2024 dt. 01.06.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent police and to quash the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Ms.R.Yamuna, For R1 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

O R D E R

To quash the proceedings in Crime No. 88 of 2024, dated 01.06.2024, on the file of the first respondent police, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the complaint of the second respondent/the husband of the first petitioner, the above criminal case has been registered as against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 355, 506(i) and 392 IPC. The petitioners claim that this case is a foisted one. 3.Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for the first respondent submits that the second respondent /defacto complainant has made several allegations as against these petitioners that they have demanded money from the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant refused, they have assaulted him, on account of which, he has suffered injury. He further submits that they have examined four witnesses so far and the investigation is yet to complete.

2/5

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

5.It appears that the defacto complainant is the first petitioner's husband. Due to some difference of opinion, they have separated. The defacto complainant has lodged a complaint as against these petitioners that they have demanded money from him, while he was waiting in a bus stand and when he refused to give money, they have assaulted him. This Court is of the view that merely because a complaint has been lodged by the husband, it does not mean that it is foisted one. The respondent police are not supposed to conduct the investigation with the materials, which has been placed by the defacto complainant and his witnesses alone and they have to consider the grounds raised by these petitioners in this petition, during the course of investigation. The respondent police is directed to conduct the investigation in a fair manner.

3/5

6. With the above observations and directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

28.07.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes vrn To The Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Trichy District.

4/5

B.PUGALENDHI,J vrn Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12674 of 2025 and Crl.MP(MD) No.9871 of 2025 28.07.2025 5/5