Senbagavalli and Others Vs. Senbagadevi

Senbagavalli and Others vs Senbagadevi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Dec 01, 2015

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1179411

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1179411
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: S. Vaidyanathan
Decided On: Dec 01, 2015
Case Number: Crl.OP.(MD) No. 22645 of 2015 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 €“ Section 482 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 €“Section 12, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25 €“ Quashing of Case €“ Petitioners sought to quash the proceed...

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Senbagavalli and Others

Respondent

Senbagadevi

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 €“ section 482 protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 €“section 12, section 17, section 18, section 19, section 20, section 22, section 23, section 24, section 25 €“ quashing of case €“ petitioners sought to quash the proceedings on the file of trial magistrate filed by respondent under section 12 of the act €“ court held €“admittedly, the domestic violence case on the file of trial magistrate, which has been filed for the offences under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the act, is pending €“ as there is serious disputed question of facts involved, it is a matter for evidence before criminal court €“ thus, court cannot interfere with the case on file of trial magistrate, at this stage €“ petition dismissed. para 5 case referred: 1. hmitwatches ltd., vs. m.a.abida and another reported in (2015(2)ctc 446) .....under section 12 of protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005. 2. the first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the brothers-in-law of the respondent. the husband of the respondent/de-facto complainant is not before this court. 3. admittedly, the domestic violence case in m.c.no. 29/2015 on the file of the judicial magistrate, no.i, thanjavur, which has been filed for the offences under sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 is pending. the petitioners submitted that the respondent herein has not stayed in the house of the petitioners herein. admittedly, the husband of the de-facto complainant/respondent has given a notice for divorce and that at present, he is working in national information centre at pondicherry. 4. as there is serious disputed question of facts involved, it is a matter for evidence before the criminal court and this court cannot interfere with the case in m.c.no.29 of 2015 on the file of the judicial magistrate, no.i, thanjavur, at this stage, more particularly, taking note of the decision of the apex court in hmit watches ltd., vs. m.a.abida and another reported in (2015(2) ctc 446), wherein, it has been held that quashing of criminal complaint on disputed question of facts cannot be entertained. 5. in the light of the above discussions, more particularly, in view of the decision of the apex court stated supra, this court is not inclined to quash the case in m.c.no.29 of 2015. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 6. at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the petitioners before the trial court may be dispensed with. 7. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court directs the trial court to dispense with the personal appearance of petitioners before it, upon the petitioners swearing to an affidavit informing their.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to M.C.No.29 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur filed by the respondent under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and quash the same insofar as the petitioners alone.)

1. The petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.29 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur filed by the respondent under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the respondent and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the brothers-in-law of the respondent. The husband of the respondent/de-facto complainant is not before this Court.

3. Admittedly, the Domestic Violence case in M.C.No. 29/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Thanjavur, which has been filed for the offences under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending. The petitioners submitted that the respondent herein has not stayed in the house of the petitioners herein. Admittedly, the husband of the de-facto complainant/respondent has given a notice for divorce and that at present, he is working in National Information Centre at Pondicherry.

4. As there is serious disputed question of facts involved, it is a matter for evidence before the criminal Court and this Court cannot interfere with the case in M.C.No.29 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Thanjavur, at this stage, more particularly, taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in HMIT Watches Ltd., Vs. M.A.Abida and Another reported in (2015(2) CTC 446), wherein, it has been held that quashing of criminal complaint on disputed question of facts cannot be entertained.

5. In the light of the above discussions, more particularly, in view of the decision of the Apex Court stated supra, this Court is not inclined to quash the case in M.C.No.29 of 2015. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court may be dispensed with.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the trial Court to dispense with the personal appearance of petitioners before it, upon the petitioners swearing to an affidavit informing their address for service, that they duly would be represented by their counsel on all hearing dates, that they would, at no instance, dispute their identity and that, they would appear before the trial Court, as and when required. Upon the petitioners doing so, the trial court may seek the presence of the petitioners before it, solely on the important hearing dates.

8. The trial Court shall take up the case in M.C.No. 29/2015 on day-today basis and it shall not be adjourned beyond 15 working days at any point of time. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2015 Same Parties Senbagavalli and Others vs Senbagadevi Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge S. Vaidyanathan

Right to Information