Ramprakash v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2021 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.11301 of 2021 1.Ramprakash 2.Nagalingam 3.Sujatha 4.Vidhyasagar 5.Shanmugam 6.Sasikala @ Sathiya Narayani ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagarthidal, Madurai City.

... Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.13 of 2021) 2.xxxxxxxx ... Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in Crime No.13 of 2021 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagartidal, Madurai City and quash the same as against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1.

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.13 of 2021 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 294 (b), 406, 109 and 506(1) of IPC. The second respondent is the defacto complainant.

1/3

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. Since at the FIR stage, the Court cannot appreciate the genuineness or reliability of the statements, I am not in a position to grant relief to the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for implicating the fifth and sixth accused. One of the reasons set out in the impugned FIR for implicating the fifth and sixth accused is that they wanted to give their daughter in marriage to the first accused and that is why, they wanted to break up the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant.

The learned counsel would point out that the daughter of the fifth and sixth accused got married even prior to the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant. Therefore, the motive attributed to them is preposterous. The learned counsel also suggests that the defacto complainant is having bipolar disorder and that is why, she has given the impugned complaint. 3.I am certain that the first respondent will definitely take into account all the contentions now putforth and if the first respondent comes to a conclusion that any person has been unjustifiably implicated, they would be deleted from the array of accused while filing the final report. The FIR itself was registered as early as on 20.05.

2021, the first respondent is directed to file the final report on merits and in accordance with law after taking note of all the contentions raised in this criminal original petition within a period of fourth months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4.With these directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ias Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

2/3

To:

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thilagarthidal, Madurai City.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

16.12.2021 MGJ(10.01.2022) 3P 3C 3/3