ULAGARATCHAGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners/Accused 2 and 3 to quash the Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4200/2007 pending on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 384, 506(ii) IPC & Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) When the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.09.2017, Mr. Tranquear Dorai Vasu, learned counsel for the defacto complainant has made a mention that he is authorised by the defacto complainant to submit on her behalf that she is not interested in pursuing the case before the trial court and that she had also expressed her inclination of not to proceed with the case against the accused to the respondent police. It was also submitted that much water has flown below the bridge over the years and that both the first accused and the defacto complainant have got divorce and they are living in two different Continents. It was also further contended by the learned counsel that when the defacto complainant had expressed her unwillingness to proceed further in prosecuting the accused, no purpose would be served in continuing the proceeding and submitted that the quash petition may be allowed on the submissions made by him. Since neither the authorisation nor the memo was filed by the defacto complainant to the effect, Mr. Tranquear Dorai Vasu was directed to file a memo of the defacto complainant authorising him to appear on her behalf and also to state that she is not pressing the complaint preferred in Crime No.04/2005 dated 25.04.2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W-24, All Women Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai-600 024 which has culminated into C.C.No.4200/2007 and now pending on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

(3.) Today, i.e 11.09.2017, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the defacto complainant Mr. Tranquebar Dorai Vasu, had filed a memo stating that the defacto complainant is not pressing the complaint preferred in Cr.No.04/05 dated 25.04.2005 on the file of the Inspector of Police, W24 All Women Police Station, Teynampet, Chennai 600 024 and hence, he prayed that the memo may be recorded and orders may be passed based on his submissions. He had also filed a letter dated 11.09.2017, sent to him by the defacto complainant authorising him to make an endorsement to this effect either in the Court or in the police station. The memo filed by the learned counsel reads as follows:-