LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-74

P.K.GOPALAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On December 19, 2019
P.K.GOPALAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defacto complainant/2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent Police. The first respondent registered the case for the offence under sections 498 A and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.390 of 2011 on 08.09.2011. During the investigation, taking note of the allegations in the complaint, FIR was registered. Aggrieved by the registration of the case in FIR in Crime No.390 of 2011 against all the accused/petitioners herein, they have filed the present Crl.O.P., seeking to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C., and to quash the FIR in Crime No.390 of 2011.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that FIR itself does not speak about the nature of commission of offence the petitioners committed and that there are no particulars given. The 2nd respondent, with the help of Police wanted to take away the child from the petitioners and that is why the complaint is filed against the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3rd petitioner herein viz., P.K.Srikumar, husband of the 2nd respondent, subsequently filed Custody O.P., in Original Petition No.285 of 2015 before the Original side of this court, which petition along with C.S.No.129 of 2013 filed by the 3rd petitioner herein for the relief of declaration that order/Judgment passed by the superior court of California, is conclusive and binding and for consequential declaration that the appellant/plaintiff is the natural guardian of his minor son, have been dismissed, for which a challenge is made in O.S.A.No.249 and 250 of 2015. A Division Bench of this court, by Common Judgment dated 25.07.2006, allowed the Original Side Appeals and custody of the minor child was handed over to the 3 rd petitioner/appellant therein. It is observed in the said judgment that the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, virtually snatched the child from the 3rd petitioner herein/appellant with the help of police and further stated that the child, being citizen of USA, the Superior Court of California is having most intimating contact.