SUSILA Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 1 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.

(2.) This Court had an occasion to deal with the entire facts of the case and give certain directions to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal. Therefore, it will be beneficial to extract the entire order, dated 20.06.2017.

(3.) Mr. N. Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for Susila submitted that the entire case has been foisted at the instance of Luxshmi in order to deprive Susila 's husband Rabindranath the fruits of the bequest by Soundaranayagam. In support of his contention, he raised a very seminal objection to the charge sheet, namely, that the police had not even questioned and recorded the statement of Rosemarie, who is the alleged victim in this case. When this was put to the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), he took instructions from the Inspector, who was standing behind him and submitted that since Rosemarie was not in a position to speak or give statement because of her old age, the police had not recorded her statement. This was vehemently denied by Mr. N. Ananthapadmanabhan, who produced a CD before this Court showing that Rosemarie is in a perfect condition and that she is not either infirm or incapable of speaking. This created a suspicion in the mind of this Court and, therefore, this Court passed the following order on 16.06.2017: