Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15416 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 26.02.2021

PRONOUNCE ON : 29.03.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15416 of 2017

and

Crl.MP(MD)No.10244 of 2017

1.R.Maglin

2.A.Romeo Julier @ Romeo Julier Arul

3.R.Mettilda

4.R.Immanuvel

5.R.Emmaculate

6.R.Sharal @ Sandhasarala ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

The Inspector of Police,

Thuvakkudi Police Station,

Trichirappalli District.

(Crime No.353 of 2017)

... Respondent/Complainant

2.K.Krishnamoorthy

... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

to call for the records relating to Crime No.353 of 2017 pending on

the file of the 1^st Respondent/Police and quash the same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar

For R1

: Mr.R.Anandharaj

Additional Public Prosecutor

For R2

: No Appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the case

in Crime No.353 of 2017, pending on the file of the 1^st

Respondent/Police.

2. The case of the prosecution as narrated in the First

information Report is briefly stated as follows:-

i) The first accused Maglin was married to one Anbu, who is the

son of the defacto complainant on 21.05.2015. Because of the

marriage, they got a child by name, Helan. Right from the date of

1/4

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15416 of 2017

marriage, the first accused started harassing the husband stating

that he was not fit and matching to her. The defacto complainant has

also treated the first accused as his daughter. The husband did not

show any dislike towards the first accused. Later, the first accused

started demanding that if she to live with the husband, the property

belongs to the defacto complainant must be settled in her favour.

Further, she did not take care either of the house hold works or the

child. In the year 2017, during the month of January, she became

pregnant for the second time. The accused 2 to 6 had forced the first

accused to abort the child. The same was objected to by the husband

and the defacto complainant. On 06.03.2017, the first accused left

the matrimonial house and aborted the child without informing anyone.

When it was questioned by the defacto complainant and her husband,

she replied that she is not willing to give birth to the child to her

husband. She also even refused to come to the matrimonial home.

ii) On 12.03.2017, all the accused persons trespassed into the

house of the defacto complainant and had taken away the house hold

articles and jewels, also caused damage to the remaining articles and

assaulted the defacto complainant, for which, he was admitted in the

hospital. He also gave a statement, when he was admitted in the

hospital. Even after that, there was no action taken by the police

officials. So, the defacto complainant, sent a complaint to the

Higher Officials. On the basis of the direction given by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Trichy in Crl.MP.No.3568 of 2017, under Section

156 (3) Cr.P.C, a case was registered in Crime No.353 of 2017 for

the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 324, 447 and 506

(ii) IPC.

3. Seeking quashment of the First Information Report, this

petition is filed mainly on the ground that the present First

Information Report was registered, on the basis of the second

complaint, which is not permissible under law.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Perusal of records as well as hearing the parties shows that

a long standing matrimonial dispute exists between the first

petitioner and her husband namely, Anbu, who is the son of the

defacto complainant.

6. According to the petitioners, the First Information Report

was filed, after a delay of six months from the date of alleged

incident. After the complaint given by the first petitioner herein,

dated 25.