Sub Inspector Of Police v. Ganeshan And 3 Others

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE : 28.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (C.C.No.187 Of 2018 On the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I Court, Sivakasi.) The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station, Sivakasi.

Cr.No.122/2016 .. Petitioner Vs.

1.Ganesan 2.Selvi 3.Kaleeswari 4.Sudha ... Respondents

ORDER

Prelude:

"This dedicated bench is for implementing the pilot project to identify and dispose of criminal cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years pending at trial, appeal or revision stage for more than 3 years in the State of Tamil Nadu with reference to the Districts coming under the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court". 1/5

2.This Dedicated Bench has taken the C.C.No.137 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi, as Suo motu Special Tr.Case. (MD) No.2679 of 2025 in Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.).(MD).No.1014 of 2025, upon proper scrutinity and considering its suitability that it is a fit case warranting the exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash the said C.C., which is pending for more than 7 years without any progress.

3.Brief facts of the prosecution case in C.C.No.137 of 2018: The defacto complainant, who is the wife of the A1, made complaint against the accused persons, stating that the accused persons conspired together and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and made coersive threat upon her. Therefore, a case was registered in Crime No.122 of 2016 and on investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.137 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 120 b, 506(ii), 341 IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act and the same is pending without trial for more than three years. 2/5

4.Discussion:

4.1.The defacto complaint made the complaint against her husband, his conqubine and her children. Now the A1 and the defacto complainant died. In view of the special circumstances, the only allegation against the accused person is made intimidation without any overt act. It is further noted that the accused persons are regularly appeared before the trial Court without fail. Further this Court considered that the offence under Section 494 IPC is not mainainable against the Conqubine and other relative. There is no evidence available to prove the Section 494 IPC on going through the records.

5.Accordingly, this Suo Motu Transfer case stands disposed of and the C.C.No.137 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi, is quashed.

28.08.2025 TM electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be 3/5

necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.

4/5

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J.

TM Order made in SUO MOTU TR.(MD).No. 2679 of 2025 28.08.2025 5/5