The court reinforced that allegations under the Domestic Violence Act necessitate a trial to evaluate the merits of the claims, preventing premature quashing of charge sheets.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.03.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13817 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.8845 and 8847 of 2022

1.Pandiyaraja

2.Subbuthai 3.Paulsamy 4.Selvarani

5.Thangapandian ... Petitioner/respondents Vs.

Kanagalakshmi ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in DVC.No.06 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Sattur and quash the same.

For petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For R-1 : No Appearance

O RDER

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in DVC.No.06 of 2022 under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Sattur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband of the respondent/complainant. The petitioners 2 to 5 are the in- laws of the complainant. The marriage between the first petitioner and the complainant was solemnized on 29.06.2015 and they have a male child out of the wedlock. Since the marriage life ran into rough weather and hence, the first petitioner filed a petition for divorce. While so, the complainant has filed the present domestic violence case against the petitioners stating that she was humiliated by demand of dowry and the same was taken cognizance in DVC No.6/2022, for quashing which, the petitioners are before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are no materials whatsoever available with the respondent to show that the petitioners have harassed the complainant. He would submit that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and hence, prays for interference.

4. It is seen that the trial court has rightly taken the case on file and this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if they are subjected to due trial as sufficient opportunity would be given to them to put forth their defence. The petitioners cannot be let by quashing the charges framed against them as that would completely undermine the alleged act, which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against him. Useful reference in this regard can be had to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana – Vs - Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426)

5. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground or scope to quash DVC.No.6 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. Accordingly, this petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this Court may consider dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the court below. Taking into consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with except for their appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioners is necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct their appearance on those days.

07.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No RR To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Sattur

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

M.DHANDAPANI. J.

RR

07.03.2024