BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI & Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5387 & 5389 of 2024 Malarvizhi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.323 of 2018)

2. Jothi ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records in C.C.No.1400 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Judicial Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Madurai and QUASH the same as against this petitioner as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Arvind Pawlraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar (R1)

Government Advocate Mr.V.Shanthurthi Raja (R2)

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.1400 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Madurai.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the first accused in the pending trial in C.C. No. 1400 of 2022 before the learned Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Madurai. The petitioner's son, who passed away after the registration of the said case, was the second accused. The defacto complainant is a woman with whom the petitioner’s husband had developed an extramarital affair. The defacto complainant is a senior citizen and her husband is also a senior citizen.

Furthermore, the defacto complainant is a widow.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, a widow, had given an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner’s husband, Kaluvathevar, with whom she had a relationship. However, the said person, after receiving the money, did not return it. In this regard, the defacto complainant went to the petitioner’s house, where her husband was residing, and demanded the return of the money. The petitioner and her son together abused the defacto complainant with filthy language. The second accused attacked the defacto complainant with a stick, while the petitioner also assaulted her with her hands. Together, they criminally intimidated the defacto complainant with dire consequences, following which a complaint was given by the defacto complainant to the first respondent police and an FIR in Crime No.323 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 & 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and after completion of investigation, the first respondent had filed a final report for the same offences before the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is not the petitioner, who had proceeded to the defacto complainant's house and had created any harm to the defacto complainant at any point of time. It is only the defacto complainant, who had come to the petitioner's house and had created ruckus. Consequent to that, a false case has been foisted by the first respondent police and no specific overt act has been made out as against the petitioner. Even assuming such an incident had happened, all that was actually done only by the petitioner's son, who is no more now and sought the indulgence of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police categorically contended that clear overt acts are attributable to the petitioner, where the petitioner had indulged in attacking the de facto complainant with her hands and tearing her blouse and she was also admitted in the hospital and took treatment, for which proper wound certificate has also been issued by the Medical Officer concerned and he is also cited as an Expert Witness and sought for dismissal of this petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

7. This Court has cautiously gone through the contents of the final report. Clear qualifying words causing annoyance to the defacto complainant were uttered by the petitioner and h