CRL OP No. 1220 of 2024 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL OP No. 1220 of 2024 AND CRL MP No. 880 of 2024 & CRL MP No.883 of 2024 R.Sriram S/o Ravichandran, No.Sf2, Block-1, Abilash Apartments, Lakshmi Nagar, 4th Stage, Naganallur, Chennai-600061. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police, W-5, All Women Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai. Crime No 23 Of 2021 2. Asmita K.S W/o Yaswanth G.K, No.2, Veera Vanjinathan Street, Semmenchery, Chennai-600119. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Sec.528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, praying to call for the records in connection with the case in C.C.No. 534 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court at Alandur. For Petitioner(s): Mr. A.Sakthivel For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For R1 R2 – No appearance https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 1220 of 2024 __________ Page2 of 5 ORDER 1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed challenging the final report filed in C.C.No. 534 of 2023 on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Alandur in as much as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and perusing the First Information Report, materials collected during the course of investigation and the final report, the gist of allegation is that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had alleged cruelty and other offences against the husband and the family members. While so, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. It can be seen that the petitioner is a friend of her husband. Upon perusal of the entire materials, the following is the only allegation as far as Accused No. 4 is concerned and verbatim statement of 2nd respondent made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder for ready reference :- “mjd; gpwF 02/04/2021k; njjp vdJ fzthpd; ez;gh; _uhk; eh ';fs; ,Ue;j tPl;il fhyp bra;J rhkhd;fis vy;yhk; vLj;J te;J vd; mk;kh tPl;od; btspapy; tPrptpl;L mj;JkPwp tPl;ow;Fs; EiHe;J cdf;F filrpahf xU tha;g;g[ jUfpnwhk; ac&;te;ij tpl;L ngha;tpL ,y;iybad;why; eP ,Ue;j ,lnk bjhpahky; ngha;tpLtha; vd;W bfhiy kpul;ly; tpLj;J vd;id gw;wp juf;Fiwthf ngrpajhYk; ehd; fhty; Jiw 100f;F nghd; bra;njd;/” In view of the above, the petitioner is also arrayed as an accused No.4 in the family issue of the 2nd respondent and the other accused. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 1220 of 2024 __________ Page3 of 5 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the copy of the email filed in Page No.1 of the typed set of papers dated 13.02.2020, the email reads as if it is sent by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to her husband requesting to handover all her belongings. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that when the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has requested her husband to return all the belongings, as a friend the petitioner helped in carrying the belongings and he only went to the house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to hand over all the belongings, however, the same was not accepted and all the materials were brought back by the petitioner. 4. When an alleged email in writing is produced before this Court and a specific allegation is made that it is only on the request of the 2nd respondent that the things were taken by this petitioner to her home and embellishment is also made that as if the petitioner has further threatened her, even though de facto complainant has entered appearance through counsel, in spite of the matter being called in the morning and passed over in the afternoon, the arguments are not countered neither any counter affidavit is filed denying the same. Even otherwise, when the primary allegations are relating to cruelty against the husband and his relatives, the only allegation is against accused No.4, who is the friend of the husband went with the articles belonging to the de facto complainant to her house. Even though, threatening per se would be an offence, it must be seen that every threat made under every occasion will not make out an offence of intimidation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 1220 of 2024 __________ Page4 of 5 and it should be in such a nature so as to cause alarm of real threat in the minds of the de facto complainant. Useful reference in this regard can be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India held in Naresh Kumar Aneja Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2025 (2) SCC 604). 5. For all the above reasons, this Criminal Original Petition deserves to be allowed and the final report in C.C.No. 534 of 2023 on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Alandur is quashed in as much as the petitioner alone is concerned. This Criminal Original Petition stands accordingly allowed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 28-07-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No RPP To 1. The Additional Mahila Court, Alandur. 2. The Inspector of Police, W-5 All Women Police Station, Selaiyur, Chennai. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 1220 of 2024 __________ Page5 of 5 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J. RPP CRL OP No. 1220 of 2024 AND CRL MP No. 880 of 2024 & CRL MP No.883 of 2024 28-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis