Skip to content


Kathirvel Rethinam and Others Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai District and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Chennai Madurai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4958 of 2016

Judge

Appellant

Kathirvel Rethinam and Others

Respondent

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai District and Another

Excerpt:


.....the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for the state. 3. on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police have registered a case in crime no.2 of 2016 for the offence under section 498-a ipc, challenging which, the petitioners/a1 to a4 are before this court. 4. it is the case of the defacto complainant that she got married to kathirvel rethinam (a1) on 11.06.2009 and thereafter, their marriage ran into rough weather. she has made stray allegations against balasubramaniyan (a2) and banumathi (a3), who are her parents-in-law. 5. if the fir is stayed, the entire prosecution will come to a stand still and therefore, this court directs the respondent police to conduct a fair investigation, bearing in mind the law laid down by the supreme court in arnesh kumar vs. state of bihar and another, reported in (2014) 3 mlj (crl) 353 (sc), and during the course of investigation, if it is found that there are no materials as against the petitioners 2 to 4, it is needless to say that their names should be dropped in the final report. with the above observation, this petition is closed. consequently, connected.....

Judgment:


(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the First Information Report pertaining to the case in Crime No.2 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.)

1. This petition has been filedto call for the First Information Report pertaining to the case in Crime No.2 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Respondent Police and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

3. On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2016 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, challenging which, the petitioners/A1 to A4 are before this Court.

4. It is the case of the defacto complainant that she got married to Kathirvel Rethinam (A1) on 11.06.2009 and thereafter, their marriage ran into rough weather. She has made stray allegations against Balasubramaniyan (A2) and Banumathi (A3), who are her parents-in-law.

5. If the FIR is stayed, the entire prosecution will come to a stand still and therefore, this Court directs the respondent police to conduct a fair investigation, bearing in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 3 MLJ (Crl) 353 (SC), and during the course of investigation, if it is found that there are no materials as against the petitioners 2 to 4, it is needless to say that their names should be dropped in the final report.

With the above observation, this petition is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //