Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

No Ground to Quash Proceedings Against Accused in Assault and Harassment Case: Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement, the Madras High Court, presided by Justice M. Dhandapani, refused to quash proceedings against Sumathi, the petitioner in the criminal case Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 16177 of 2022. The case, involving allegations under the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, will proceed to trial.

The Court dealt with a petition to quash criminal proceedings involving charges of assault and harassment. Key legal questions involved the application of sections 294(b), 324, 323, 506(ii) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

The prosecution alleged that Sumathi was involved in an illegal relationship with the complainant's husband and assaulted the complainant. The petitioner sought to quash these proceedings, alleging that the case was false and lacked specific allegations against her.

The Court, after considering the submissions, found sufficient material to proceed with the trial. Citing the decision in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Crl.) 426), the Court emphasized the importance of a trial to determine the veracity of the allegations. The petitioner's plea for quashing the charges was declined, underscoring the need for trial to assess the charges properly.

Justice Dhandapani stated, “The petitioner cannot be let off by quashing the charges against her as that would completely undermine the alleged act, which is the subject matter of criminal trial pending against her.”

The Court also addressed the concern regarding the petitioner’s personal appearance, dispensing with it except on specific occasions, such as receiving copies of proceedings, framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the pronouncement of judgment.

Decision: The petition to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the necessity of a trial to adjudicate the allegations. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Date of Decision: 11.03.2024.

Sumathi Vs. State through The Inspector of Police, Rameshwaram Town Police Station & Anr.

 

Similar News