Nandhini v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR IN CRL OP(MD) NO. 22717 OF 2024 Nandhini W/o.Muthuvirumandi, 7/272, Avarampatti, Nilakottai, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep by The Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

Crime no.23 of 2022. and another Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Karuppasamypandiyan, Advocate For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

ORDER

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the first respondent.

1/4

2. Notice to the second respondent returnable by 12.02.2025. Private notice is also permitted.

3. The petitioner / A7, who is facing trial in C.C.No.227 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 452, 427, 323 and 506(ii) of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, has filed the quash application.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the de-facto complainant has presented a case in which, on 13.02.2022, at around 06:30 p.m., her husband, Sethuraman, was attacked by some of the accused. Subsequently, at about 08:00 p.m. on the same day, all the accused, including the petitioner, allegedly entered the de-facto complainant's house and threatened that her husband had set fire to the brick kiln belonging to the accused and therefore, they would not be allowed him to go scot-free. Furthermore, they are said to have assaulted the de-facto complainant, causing damage to electronic items and household articles. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident register records that two known male persons had assaulted the de-facto complainant, who 2/4

was described as conscious and oriented. The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the statement of Dr.Murugalakshmi, who indicated that only two persons had attacked the de-facto complainant on 13.02.2022, while she stated that four persons were involved in the attack on the de-facto complainant's husband on 14.02.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, particularly since A2, her husband, is involved in the matter.

6. Finding force in the above said submissions, there shall be an order of interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.227 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai, in respect of the petitioner alone. sd/- 02/01/2025 / TRUE COPY / /01/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SMN2 TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NILAKOTTAI.

3/4

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILAMPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.14213 of 2024 Date :02/01/2025 SS/VR/SAR- /08/01/2025/ 4P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4