Marippan vs State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 284

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Marippan – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Avinash Wadhwani, Adv., Mr. G. Balaji, AoR, Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AoR, Mr. Devyani Gupta, Adv., Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv., Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv., Mr. A. Renganath, Adv., Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AoR

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

BACKGROUND:

3. The appellants have moved this Court against the Judgment¹[Final Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2022 in Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.15448/2022] passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court²[The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench at Madurai], whereby their prayer for quashing the Chargesheet in the criminal case³[P.R.C. No.16/2022 before the Additional Mahila Court, Theni, arising from Crime No.13/2022, All Women Police Station, Theni] qua them has been rejected, by dismissal of their petition under Section 482⁴[‘482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice’] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁵[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’].

4. As per the prosecution story, the complainant alleges that she was in a relationship with the son of the appellants and established physical relations with the son, only on the assuranc