Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Usharani and Another Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station and Another

Usharani and Another vs The State represented by the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 21, 2016
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1189659

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.O.P.No. 8574 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2012
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998 - Section 4 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 161, Section 482 Criminal Colour-Petitioners/Accused were alleged to have committed offence under Section 4 of Act, 1998 and Section 498-A of Code, 1860 Hence this Quash Petition Court Held There was pro...

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Usharani and Another

Respondent

The State represented by the Inspector of Police All Women Police Station and Another

Excerpt

tamil nadu prohibition of women harassment act, 1998 - section 4 - criminal procedure code, 1973 section 161, section 482 criminal colour-petitioners/accused were alleged to have committed offence under section 4 of act, 1998 and section 498-a of code, 1860 hence this quash petition court held there was property dispute between petitioners and complainant - this property dispute has been given criminal colour by using complainant as pawn - prosecution against petitioners in trial court is abuse of process of law prosecution was quashed petition was allowed. paras: (10) .....the records in c.c.no.18 of 2012 on the file of the district munsif-cum- judicial magistrate court, denkanikkottai and quash the same as illegal. 2 for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. 3 before going into the facts of the case, it is necessary to state the relationship among the parties. 4 one thyagarajan had two wives, viz., x and usharani. muthukumaran is the son of thyagarajan through x. after the demise of x, thyagarajan married usharani and through her, he has a son by name thamil kumaran. thyagarajan has also breathed his last. muthukumaran has married one bakialakshmi. 5 on the complaint lodged by bakialakshmi, the respondent police registered a case in crime no.9 of 2011 and after completing the investigation, have filed a final report in c.c. no.18 of 2012 before the district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, denkanikottai against usharani (a1) and thamil kumaran (a2) for an alleged offence under section 4 of the tamil nadu prohibition of women harassment act, challenging which, usharani (a1) and thamil kumaran (a2) are before this court. 6 heard mr. r. sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the accused and mr. c. emalias, learned additional public prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-state. though notice was served on bakialakshmi, she did not choose to enter appearance and therefore, her name was printed in the cause list, despite which, there was no representation on her behalf. 7 on the complaint given by bakialakshmi, wherein, she had alleged that she was ill-treated by usharani (a1) and thamil kumaran (a2) and that on 10.10.2011, she and her husband were chased out of house, first information report was registered in crime no.9 of 2011 by the first respondent police. 8 for the incident that is said to have happened on 10.10.2011, the complaint was given on 28.11.2011 and the first information report was registered on the same day in crime no.9 of 2011 for offences under section 498-a ipc and section 4 of the.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C. No.18 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikkottai and quash the same as illegal.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikkottai and quash the same as illegal.

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

3 Before going into the facts of the case, it is necessary to state the relationship among the parties.

4 One Thyagarajan had two wives, viz., X and Usharani. Muthukumaran is the son of Thyagarajan through X. After the demise of X, Thyagarajan married Usharani and through her, he has a son by name Thamil Kumaran. Thyagarajan has also breathed his last. Muthukumaran has married one Bakialakshmi.

5 On the complaint lodged by Bakialakshmi, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2011 and after completing the investigation, have filed a final report in C.C. No.18 of 2012 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai against Usharani (A1) and Thamil Kumaran (A2) for an alleged offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, challenging which, Usharani (A1) and Thamil Kumaran (A2) are before this Court.

6 Heard Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State. Though notice was served on Bakialakshmi, she did not choose to enter appearance and therefore, her name was printed in the cause list, despite which, there was no representation on her behalf.

7 On the complaint given by Bakialakshmi, wherein, she had alleged that she was ill-treated by Usharani (A1) and Thamil Kumaran (A2) and that on 10.10.2011, she and her husband were chased out of house, First Information Report was registered in Crime No.9 of 2011 by the first respondent police.

8 For the incident that is said to have happened on 10.10.2011, the complaint was given on 28.11.2011 and the First Information Report was registered on the same day in Crime No.9 of 2011 for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. As stated above, the police, after completing the investigation, have filed a final report in C.C. No.18 of 2012, wherein, the allegation appears to be different. Inasmuch as, it is alleged in the final report that on 18.04.2010, Bakialakshmi and her husband were driven away by Usharani and Thamil Kumaran, the offence under Section 498-A IPC stood dropped and instead, an offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, has been included in the final report.

9 In order to get over this patent contradiction, the police have recorded the Section 161 statement of Bakialakshmi, wherein, she has stated that inadvertently she had given the date as 10.10.2011, whereas, the occurrence had taken place on 18.04.2010. This Court is unable to stomach this variation. Assuming for a moment that the incident had taken place on 18.04.2010 as found in the Section 161 statement of Bakialakshmi, the First Information Report has been registered only on 28.11.2011, which is more than a year.

10. On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, it is obvious that there is a property dispute between Muthukumaran and his step-mother Usharani and step-brother Thamil Kumaran, after the demise of his father Thyagarajan. This property dispute has been given a criminal colour by using Bakialakshmi as a pawn. In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution against the accused in C.C. No.18 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court, Denkanikottai, is an abuse of process of law.

11 In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution as against the accused is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Connected M.P. Nos. are closed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial