BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.10.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6013 of 2025

1.Neelavathi

2.Rajeswari @ Raji

3.Jeyalakshmi 4.Pathmavathi 5.Neelakandan

6.Vijayalakshmi @ Viji ... Petitioners/A2 to A7 Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Aranthangi Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.830 of 2021)

2.Masilamani ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in S.C.No.27 of 2025 on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, and quash the same insofar as the petitioners/A2 to A7 are concerned.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Aruljenifer for M/s.KBS Law Office For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram (for R1)

Additional Public Prosecutor No appearance (for R2)

*****

O R D E R

The petitioners seek to quash the impugned Charge Sheet in S.C.No.27 of 2025 on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, which was filed for the offences under Section 306 of IPC.

2.The gist of the allegation in the final report is that the first accused namely, Ilayaraja married the de facto complainant's daughter/victim in the year 2012 and that out of the wedlock, a son was born; that the victim was sent out of the matrimonial house, when she became pregnant; that none of the petitioners had visited the victim or the new born after the child birth; that in August 2019, there was a mediation and the petitioners undertook that they would not disturb the matrimonial affairs between the first accused and the victim girl; that the first accused after promising that he would take care of the victim, had extra-marital affairs with the 8^th accused; that three days prior to the occurrence, the victim had written a letter stating that her life is in danger; that on

10.07.2021, the victim had consumed poison on the instigation of the petitioners and committed suicide and therefore, the petitioners are liable for the aforesaid offences.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that none of the petitioners are living in the matrimonial home; that the only grievance of the victim even according to the prosecution is that the first accused had extra-marital affairs with the 8^th accused; that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged extra-marital affairs of the first accused; that the prosecution has suppressed the letters said to have been written by the victim three days prior to the occurrence; that the prosecution had examined one Kumaran, who was the neighbour of the victim and who had stated that the victim had handed over the letter and that he had destroyed the letter and that he had sent the photo of the letter taken to the victim's sister one Sharmila and that the prosecution had not produced the said photograph, which was allegedly taken from the victim's suicide note and that the allegations in the impugned final report even if it is accepted to be true would not constitute the offence under Section 306 of IPC and prayed for quashing.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra, submitted that the issue as to whether the petitioners have committed abetment of suicide cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition and that the points raised by the petitioners has to be therefore agitated in the trial. He would further submit that the sister of the victim one Sharmila had stated about the whatsapp message received from the said Kumaran, who is said to have received the letter from the victim girl and that her statement would show that the victim girl had narrated the cruelty meted out to her by the petitioners as well as by the first accused and therefore, the impugned prosecution cannot be quashed.

5.Though notice was served on second respondent, none has entered appearance.

6.From the allegations in the final report, it is seen that there had been matrimonia