IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No. 12436 of 2022

1. M.Beermohamed

2. B.Betha Begam ..Petitioners Vs A.Velmurugan ..Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the entire proceedings pursuant to the C.C. No.103/2021 for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323 and 506(i) of IPC, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Sangarapuram.

For Petitioners : Mr. T.Balachandran For Respondent : No appearance

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.103/2021 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Sangarapuram, for the alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323 and 506(i) of IPC.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the private complaint is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute pending between the petitioners and the respondent/complainant. Even taking into consideration the entire materials available on record at their face value, the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC cannot be made out as against the petitioners. He further submitted that in order to make out a case for offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, the place of occurrence should be a public place or near a public place. As per the complaint, admittedly, the occurrence is said to have taken place inside the house. Further, absolutely, there was no material to show that the respondent/complainant suffered any injury during the occurrence. Further, in order to make out a case for offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC, the threat should be a real one and not a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom the threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. He further submitted that empty threat does not prima facie mean that the case under Section 506 of IPC is made out against the petitioners and hence, the entire proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed.

3. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another in (1996) 4 SCC 17 and also the decisions of this Court in Murugavel vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 26824 and also in Thavalingam and another vs. State by Inspector of Police in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 33284.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are the brother-in-law and wife of the brother-in-law of the complainant. He further submitted that there was no requirement for the complainant to come to the house of the petitioners and it is the complainant who had come to the house of the petitioners, created ruckus and filed a false complaint against the petitioners. Further, the second petitioner's sister, who is married to the complainant, was harassed and tortured by the complainant and that she has filed O.S.No.149 of 2019 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarapuram, seeking divorce and the complainant has filed H.M.O.P.No.64 of 2019 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

5. Despite service of notice and printing the name of the respondent/complainant, there was no representation for the respondent on 12.01.2025 and on subsequent dates and hence, this Court had directed the matter to be listed under the caption "for orders" today. Even today, there was no representation for the respondent.

6. Admittedly, the complainant is the brother-in-law of the second petitioner who married the second petitioner's sister. There are matrimonial disputes pending between the complainant and the second petitioner's sister. Even admittedly, as per the complainant, the complainant is said to have come to the house of the petitioners and the occurrence is said to have