Advocates:
['M/s Selvanayagam D', '', 'Anbarasi M', 'Dhivakar K', '', 'Affidavit of Service filed', 'Public Prosecutor', '', 'pvt notice permitted - proof filed SERVED', 'R - SERVED R', 'A PRIYA D/o Allimuthu']

Crl.O.P(MD)No.5647 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 27.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P(MD)No.5647 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P(MD)No.3247 of 2021

1.M.Ayyar

2.A.Chinnaponnu

3.A.Saminathan

4.A.Amsavalli

... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4

Vs.

1.State Represented by

The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Melur Police Station,

Madurai District.

(Cr.No.151 of 2015)

... 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2.A.Priya

... 2^nd Respondent/De facto Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with C.C.No.194 of

2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur and quash the

same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.D.Selvanayagam

For R1

: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh

Government Advocate (Crl.side)

For R2

: No Appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.194 of 2020 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged

by the second respondent alleging that the second respondent fell in

love with the son of the first accused and by giving false promise

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.O.P(MD)No.5647 of 2021

of marriage had sexual intercourse. Therefore, the son of the first

accused refused to marry her. Due to their relationship she got

pregnant. Hence, she lodged a complaint and the case was registered

in Cr.No.147 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i)

of IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012. In pursuant to the said FIR

the son of the first petitioner was arrested and remanded to

judicial custody. While pending investigation, the petitioners

herein threatened the second respondent to withdrawn the earlier

complaint and also threatened her with dire consequences. Hence,

the present complaint. After completion of investigation, the first

respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken

cognizance for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC.

3.Eventhough notice served to the second respondent and also

her name was printed in the cause list, no one appeared on behalf of

her. Perused the materials available on record.

4.There are totally four accused, in which, the petitioners are

arrayed as A1 to A4. While pending quash petition, A1 and A2 namely

the first and second petitioners died. Insofar as A3 and A4 are

concerned they are none other than the son and daughter of the

petitioners 1 and 2. It is seen that the petitioners are also

accused in Cr.No.147 of 2015 registered for the offence under

Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and they are

facing trial in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the District

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai. Further the second respondent

lodged a complaint on 16.12.2015 when the investigation was pending

in Cr.No.147 of 2015 dated 25.11.2015.

5.On perusal of records revealed that the earlier complaint was

lodged on 25.11.2015 on the allegations that the son of the first

petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant, after having

physical relationship. Due to which, she got two months pregant.

On that day she was threatned by the family members namely the

petitioners. The first respondent registered the case in Cr.No.147

of 2015 for the very same occurrence. Again the first respondent

registered another case in Cr.No.151 of 2012 for the offence under

Sections 294 (b) and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioners

herein. Already the petitioners are facing charge for the offence

under Sectiona 294(b), 506(i) IPC r/w 6 of POCSO Act 2012 in

Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the District Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court, Madurai. Therefore, the present proceedings is

nothing but clear abuse of process of