THILAGAVATHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.480 of 2015, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virddhachalam.

(2.) The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows:- The 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent and the petitioners 2 to 5 are the brothers of the 1 st petitioner. The marriage between the 1 st petitioner and the 2 nd respondent was solemnized on 31.10.1994. There was difference of opinion between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant On 10.04.2011, the 1 st petitioner along with other accused restrained the 2 nd respondent, scolded, threatened, slapped and kicked him. Hence, the 2 nd respondent made a complaint to the 1 st respondent, which was registered in Crime No.340 of 2011, for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of IPC. After investigation, the first respondent filed a charge sheet, for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 352, and 506(i) of IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Viruddhachalam, which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.480 of 2015. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence, issued summons to the accused.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1 st petitioner is the wife of the 2 nd respondent / defacto complainant. The marriage between the 1 st petitioner and the 2 nd respondent was solemnized on 31.10.1994. There was some difference of opinion between the 1 st petitioner and the defacto complainant and now they are living separately. Based on the complaint given by the 2 nd respondent, the case in Crime No.340 of 2011, has been registered, final report filed, which was taken on file in S.T.C.No.480 of 2015, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Viruddhachalam and issued summons to the petitioners. It was contended that without any appreciation of the major contradictions appeared in the statements of the list of witnesses, the learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the case and issued summons to the accused. Further, the averments made in the First Information Report and the Statements will not show any commission of the offence and recorded the statements of the witnesses, which is totally against the First Information Report given by the 2 nd respondent. Further, there was a delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint and the prosecution did not explain the same and it creates serious doubts on the case of the prosecution. Further submitted that he was informed that the 2 nd respondent passed away on 17.07.2020, but it could not be confirmed. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the aforesaid relief.