Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32940 (MAD)

MANJULA v. State by, The Inspector of Police,

CRL OP/10470/2025 · 2025-04-08

G K Ilanthiraiyan

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Crl.O.P.No.10470 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.10470 of 2025 1. Manjula 2. Krishnakumar 3. Parithi Ilamvaluthi 4. Sellamuthu @ Selvam ... Petitioners Vs 1. State By, The Inspector of Police, Arumbavoor Police Station, Perambalur District. (Cr.No.251 of 2023) 2. Manjula ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the proceedings/charge sheet in CC.No.25/2024 filed U/s 392 IPC @ 392, r/w 109, 211 of IPC pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Veppanthattai. For Petitioners : Mr.D.Ashokkumar For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.10470 of 2025 This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Veppanthattai. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent alleging that her chain was snatched by the other accused, FIR was registered by the first respondent in Crime No.251 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 211 and 392 of IPC. 4. Later, the defacto complainant appeared before the Village Administrative Officer. It is seen that she lodged a complaint only to escape from her son and to suppress the illegal intimacy with the second accused. Now, the defacto complainant is arrayed as first accused. Therefore, no offence is committed by the petitioners and only on the false complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered FIR and filed a final report. When it being so, if the trial is proceeded further as against the petitioners, it would not serve any purpose. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.10470 of 2025 5. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to quash the charge sheet in CC.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Veppanthattai. Accordingly, the charge sheet in CC.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Veppanthattai, is hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 08.04.2025 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.10470 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, mn To 1. The Judicial Magistrate Court at Veppanthattai. 2. The Inspector of Police, Arumbavoor Police Station, Perambalur District. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.O.P.No.10470 of 2025 08.04.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis