GOKULAKRISHNAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.136 of 2013 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, Madurai District, for the offences under sections 294(b) , 506(ii) & 498(A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as against these petitioners.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that totally there are six accused persons, in which the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 & 7. The first petitioner got married with the second respondent/defacto complainant on 21.10.2010. There was misunderstanding between them and also the defacto complainant had illegal intimacy with other person. With regard to the same, there was a dispute between them. In fact, on 30.06.2012 the first petitioner brutally attacked by the second respondent and her men and as such he lodged a complaint the same was registered in Crime No.771 of 2012 on the file of the B1 police station, Melur for the offences under Sections 294(b) , 323 & 506(i) of I.P.C. Even, before that, the second respondent and her men were trespassed into their house and broken the house hold articles and also attacked his parents, therefore, on complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.309 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 147 , 448 , 427 , 506(ii) , 109 and 294(b) of I.P.C. on the file of the B-1 police station. After the aforesaid complaint was registered against the second respondent, the present complaint has been foisted with false allegations as against the petitioners. The first respondent mechanically registered a case without even conducting any enquiry and also charge sheeted and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C. No.136 of 2013. He would further submit that the first petitioner filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No. 33 of 2014 as against the second respondent on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai on the ground of cruelty and adultery. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai decreed the petition and granted divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. Thereafter, whereabouts the second respondent and she eloped with other person and living somewhere. Only because of the absence of the defacto complainant and witness, the entire proceeding is pending from the year 2013. As far as the petitioners concerned they were regularly appeared before the trial Court, but nothing commenced till today. Therefore, the pendency of the proceedings would not serve any purpose and sought for quashing the entire proceedings.

(3.) Though notice served on the second respondent, none appeared on behalf of the second respondent.