Manjula v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL. O.P(MD) No. 14705 of 2025 and CRL M.P.(MD) Nos.11919 & 11920 of 2025
1. Manjula,
2. Chandra, ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.
2. Renuga, ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.124 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar District and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 ***** Page No. 1 of 5
O R D E R
The petitioners pray for quashing of the impugned final report in C.C.No.124 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar District, for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C.
2. The allegation in the final report is that the Accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 had induced the defacto complainant and other victims to pay huge sums of money on the promise of obtaining Government Jobs; that they neither obtained the job nor returned the money; and that the petitioners are Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and abetted A1 in the Commission of the offence by inducing the victims to pay money.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation against the petitioners are false; that the first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law of A1 and that due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioners are living away from A1; that the petitioners have been made as accused only to arm-twist them to force A1 to return the unpayment of the amount; that the second respondent/ Page No. 2 of 5
defacto complainant had stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that the petitioners were not involved in the offence and hence submitted that the impugned prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and sought for quashing of the final report.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant is not the only victim and there are other 5 victims and all of them have implicated the petitioners and specified the role played by the petitioners in the alleged offence committed by A1. He would further submit that it is not a case of no evidence and if the petitioners' case is that the allegations are false, the petitioners have to raise the same before the trial court.
5. Though the petitioners are right in saying that the defacto complainant herself has disowned her complaint against the petitioners, this Court finds that there are other victims, who have implicated the petitioners, in the statements made to the police. The other points that the petitioners are living separately and have no connection with A1 and have been falsely implicated, cannot be decided in this quash petition. Page No. 3 of 5
6. Therefore, this Court is of view that the petitioners have to raise all their defences before the trial court. However, considering the fact that the petitioners are ladies aged about 57 years and 77 years respectively, the petitioners' appearance before the trial Court is dispensed with on all hearing dates, except when their presence is required for the progress of the trial. The trial Court may also consider expeditious disposal of the trial.
7. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No LS To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar District.
2.The the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.
Page No. 4 of 5
SUNDER MOHAN ,J.
LS 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.OP(MD) No. 14705 of 2025 09.09.2025 Page No. 5 of 5