The court quashed the proceedings due to procedural inconsistencies and findings that maintaining the case would constitute an abuse of process.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.480 of 2015, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virddhachalam.

2. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows: -
The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners 2 to 5 are the brothers of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 31.10.1994. There was difference of opinion between the lstpetitioner and the de facto complainant On 10.04.2011, the 1st petitioner along with other accused restrained the 2nd respondent, scolded, threatened, slapped and kicked him. Hence, the 2nd respondent made a complaint to the 1st respondent, which was registered in Crime No.340 of 2011, for the offences under S.147, S.341, S.294(b), S.323, and 506(i) of IPC. After investigation, the first respondent filed a charge sheet, for the offences under S.147, S.341, S.294(b), S.352, and 506(i) of IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Viruddhachalam, which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.480 of 2015. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence, issued summons to the accused.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1 petitioner is the wife of the 2 respondent / de facto complainant. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnized on 31.10.1994. There was some difference of opinion between the 1 petitioner and the de facto complainant and now they are living separately. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the case in Crime No.340 of 2011, has been registered, final report filed, which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.480 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Viruddhachalam and issued summons to the petitioners. It was contended that without any appreciation of the major contradictions appeared in the statements of the list of witnesses, the learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the case and issued summons to the accused. Further, the averments made in the First Information Report and the Statements will not show any commission of the offence and recorded the statements of the witnesses, which is totally against the First Information Report given by the 2nd respondent. Further, there was a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint and the prosecution did not explain the same and it creates serious doubts on the case of the prosecution. Further submitted that he was informed that the 2nd respondent passed away on 17.07.2020, but it could not be confirmed. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the aforesaid relief.

4. Finding that no one appeared for the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant despite service of notice, name printed in cause list for quite some time, this Court, appoints Mr. A. Aswin Kumar, as Legal - Aid Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5. The learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent / de facto complainant would submit that inasmuch as after investigation, the 1st respondent Police filed final report, which has been taken cognizance and issued summons and it is for trial Court to consider the pleas of the accused. The error in date of occurrence is only clerical, delay and minor inconsistency can be considered during trial, but at this stage, it is too early on the part of the accused in challenging the proceedings. Hence, the learned legal aid counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. Further, the learned counsel, in support of his contentions, relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md