Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2451 of 2024

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1894 and 1895 of 2024

1.S.Sathish Kumar

2. S.Selvi

3. M.Sathya

4. R.Sasiprabha

5. A.Murugan

6. S.Ramachandran

7. E.Subbiah

8. K.Jothi ... Petitioners/Accused No.1

to 7 & 10

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep . by the Sub Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Bodinayakanoor,

Theni District.

Crime No.4/2023 .... 1

st

Respondent / Complainant

1/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

2. Sivasankari ... Respondent /

De-facto Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records in connection with the impugned

Charge Sheet in CC.No.331 of 2023 pending on the file of learned

Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakkanur and quash the same in

so far as the Petitioners are concerned.

For Petitioners: Mr.K.Gurunathan

For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R-2 : Mr.S.Sundarapandian

ORDER

Prologue:

Matrimonial prosecutions often present before the Court a

difficult intersection between the legitimate cry of an aggrieved wife

and the equally serious possibility of over-implication of every person

standing within the relational circumference of the husband. The

inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not intended either to conduct a

mini trial or to stifle a genuine prosecution at its threshold. Equally,

it is a constitutional safety valve against compelling persons to face

the rigour of criminal trial when the allegations, even if accepted as

2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

they stand, do not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences

alleged against them.

2. The present petition is one such case where the first

petitioner/husband stands on a footing different from the other

petitioners, who are his relatives and alleged supporters. The Court

is therefore called upon to draw a careful distinction between the

principal matrimonial allegations made against the husband and the

sweeping, omnibus allegations made against the other family

members and relatives.

Case of the Prosecution:

3. The petitioners herein are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 7

and 10 in C.C.No.331 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur. The first respondent police

registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2023 on the complaint of the

second respondent/de facto complainant dated 30.01.2023.

3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

4. After investigation, the first respondent filed the final report

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, on

22.12.2023. The final report alleges offences under Sections 498-A,

294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC against the first petitioner/husband

and under Section 498-A IPC against petitioners 2 to 7 and 10.

5. The marriage between the first petitioner and the second

respondent was solemnised on 29.06.2015. Out of the wedlock, a

male child was born on 30.07.2016. The prosecution case is that the

first petitioner ill-treated the de facto complainant and that his

relatives supported him in such conduct. It is further alleged that the

first petitioner had developed illegal intimacy with the eighth accused

and that, on her instigation, the first petitioner assaulted and

abused the de facto complainant on 08.11.2022 and seized her

mobile phone. It is further alleged that on 11.11.2022, the first

petitioner again assaulted the de facto complainant demanding the

password of her phone. On these allegations, the complaint was

lodged on 30.01.2023 and the case came to be registered.

4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

Grounds raised for quash:

6. The petitioners seek quashment of the proceedings primarily

on the ground that the allegations are born out of matrimonial

discord and do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. It

is contended that the de facto complainant never lived in the joint

family of the first petitioner and that, within three days of marriage,

the first petitioner and the de facto complainant started their

matrimonial life separately at Tiruppur and thereafter in police

quarters at Bodinayakanur. It is further contended that petitioners 2

to 7 and 10 were living separately and had no role in the alleged

matrimonial dispute. According to the petitioners, the allegations

against them are vague, general and omnibus in nature.

7. The petitioners further contend that there is an unexplained

delay of nearly 80 days in lodging the complaint with respect to the

alleged occurrence dated 08.11.2022. It is also contended that no

medical records or material objects are available to sustain the

offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and that the offences

5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC are not supported by

independent witnesses.

8. The petitioners would submit that the de facto complainant

had earlier quarrelled with the eighth and ninth accused and that

the ninth accused had given a complaint on 14.12.2022, which was

assigned C.S.R.No.773 of 2022. According to the petitioners, the

present complaint is a counterblast and has been given to wreak

vengeance.

Arguments on either side:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

entire prosecution is an abuse of process of law. He would submit

that the complaint is the result of ordinary wear and tear of

matrimonial life, which has been given a criminal colour. The learned

counsel further submitted that the first petitioner is a police

constable and that the de facto complainant used to interfere with

his official duties and suspect him whenever he spoke to his

colleagues or parties in connection with his work.

6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

10. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant

insisted that the first petitioner should hand over his entire salary to

her and should not spend any amount for his parents or sisters. It is

also submitted that the de facto complainant compelled the first

petitioner to reside with her parents and refused to reside with his

family. The learned counsel submitted that petitioners 2 to 7 and 10

have been roped in only because they are relatives of the first

petitioner. There are no specific overt acts, no date-wise allegations,

no particulars of cruelty and no material to show their participation

in any alleged offence.

11. The learned counsel would further submit that the

allegations under Section 498-A IPC against the relatives are wholly

bald. The prosecution materials do not indicate any wilful conduct of

such a nature as is likely to drive the de facto complainant to commit

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Nor

is there any allegation of unlawful demand.

7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

12. As regards Sections 323 and 324 IPC, the learned counsel

submitted that the de facto complainant herself has stated that she

took country treatment and that there is no medical record to

support the alleged assault. It is therefore contended that the final

report is bereft of legal foundation.

13. With regard to Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, the learned

counsel submitted that there are no independent witnesses to

establish obscene utterances in a public place or criminal

intimidation attracting the aggravated form under Section 506(ii)

IPC.

14. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the final

report has been filed after investigation and that the truth or

otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into in a petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Government Advocate submitted

that the allegations against the first petitioner are specific. The

complaint contains allegations of cruelty, abuse, assault, seizure of

8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

mobile phone, demand for password and intimidation. Therefore, at

least against the first petitioner, the matter must necessarily go to

trial.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent/de facto complainant submitted that the complaint

cannot be viewed in isolation and that matrimonial cruelty often

takes place within the private sphere of the matrimonial home.

Merely because there are no independent witnesses, the prosecution

cannot be quashed at the threshold. It is further submitted that the

delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal in matrimonial offences,

since the victim would naturally attempt reconciliation before

approaching the police. Therefore, the respondents prayed for

dismissal of the petition.

16. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

Point for Consideration:

17. The point that arises for consideration is whether the final

report in C.C.No.331 of 2023, pending on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur, is liable to be quashed

insofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 7 and 10 are concerned,

either wholly or partly?

Governing Legal Principles:

18. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in

nature. It is intended to prevent abuse of process of Court and to

secure the ends of justice. However, such power must be exercised

sparingly, with circumspection and only in cases where continuation

of prosecution would amount to manifest injustice.

19. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court illustratively laid down categories where criminal proceedings

may be quashed. One such category is where the allegations in the

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute

any offence against the accused.

20. In matrimonial cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

repeatedly cautioned that relatives of the husband should not be

compelled to face criminal trial on the basis of vague, omnibus and

sweeping allegations. At the same time, where specific allegations are

available against the husband or any particular accused, the Court

must be slow to interdict the prosecution at the threshold.

21. In a final-report quash matter, the Court is entitled to look

not merely at the FIR but also at the final report and the materials

collected during investigation. The Court does not weigh the

probative value of such materials, but it can certainly examine

whether the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are disclosed.

11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

Analysis:

22. The first petitioner is the husband of the de facto

complainant. The allegations against him are not confined to a mere

general statement that he ill-treated the de facto complainant. The

complaint refers to specific incidents dated 08.11.2022 and

11.11.2022. It is alleged that on 08.11.2022, the first petitioner

assaulted and abused the de facto complainant and seized her

phone. It is further alleged that on 11.11.2022, he again assaulted

her demanding the password of the phone. Whether these allegations

are true or exaggerated is not a matter which can be adjudicated in

this petition. The defence of the first petitioner that the de facto

complainant is suspicious, dominating and uninterested in

matrimonial life is a matter of evidence.

23. The contention that the de facto complainant did not reside

with the first petitioner’s relatives may be relevant to the case of the

other accused. However, insofar as the husband is concerned, the

matrimonial relationship, the alleged incidents, the alleged assault

and the alleged cruelty are matters requiring trial. Therefore, this

12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the first

petitioner at the threshold.

24. Section 498-A IPC punishes cruelty by the husband or

relative of the husband. Cruelty, for the purpose of the provision,

must satisfy the statutory explanation. It must either be wilful

conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit

suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health,

whether mental or physical, or harassment with a view to coercing

her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand.

25. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the allegations

relate to matrimonial cruelty, assault, abuse and conduct within the

matrimonial relationship. Whether the statutory threshold is

ultimately proved is a matter for trial. However, insofar as petitioners

2 to 7 and 10 are concerned, the allegations are materially different.

The substance of the allegation against them is that they supported

the first petitioner. There are no specific particulars as to when,

13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

where and how each of them subjected the de facto complainant to

cruelty.

26. The final report does not disclose any clear, individual

overt act against petitioners 2 to 7 and 10. There is no specific

allegation of unlawful demand. There is also no specific allegation

that any of them committed any wilful act satisfying the statutory

meaning of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

27. The mere use of expressions such as “supported him” or

“in-laws caused mental cruelty” cannot by itself constitute an offence

under Section 498-A IPC. Criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to

proceed on the basis of relationship alone. Therefore, the proceedings

under Section 498-A IPC deserve to be quashed insofar as petitioners

2 to 7 and 10 are concerned.

28. The offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC are alleged

only against the first petitioner. Section 323 IPC deals with

14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

voluntarily causing hurt. Section 324 IPC deals with voluntarily

causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The petitioners

contend that there is no medical evidence and that the de facto

complainant allegedly took country treatment. The absence of

medical evidence may be a relevant factor at trial, but it cannot, by

itself, be a ground to quash the proceedings against the first

petitioner when the de facto complainant has made a direct

allegation of assault.

29. However, if the final report does not disclose the weapon or

dangerous means allegedly used for the purpose of Section 324 IPC,

the learned Trial Court shall consider the same at the appropriate

stage, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. At this

stage, the allegations of physical assault against the first petitioner

cannot be brushed aside in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

30. Section 294(b) IPC requires obscene words to be uttered in

or near a public place, causing annoyance to others. A mere abusive

expression, without satisfying the statutory requirement of obscenity

15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

and public annoyance, would not attract Section 294(b) IPC. In the

present case, the allegation under Section 294(b) IPC is directed

against the first petitioner. The sufficiency of evidence regarding the

place of occurrence, the words allegedly uttered and the presence of

persons annoyed thereby are matters which may be tested before the

Trial Court.

31. Since the principal allegations against the first petitioner

survive, this Court is not inclined to dissect the prosecution at this

stage by quashing Section 294(b) IPC alone. However, the first

petitioner is at liberty to raise all legal contentions before the Trial

Court at the appropriate stage.

32. Section 506(ii) IPC deals with criminal intimidation of an

aggravated nature. The threat must be of such seriousness as to

cause alarm and must fall within the aggravated category

contemplated by the provision. The petitioners contend that the

allegation of criminal intimidation is bald and unsupported by

16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

independent witnesses. Whether the threat was actually made and

whether it was sufficient to cause alarm are matters of evidence.

33. As the allegation is against the first petitioner/husband in

the course of the alleged matrimonial incidents, this Court is not

inclined to quash the said offence at the threshold. However, the

Trial Court shall independently assess whether the ingredients of

Section 506(ii) IPC are made out, without being influenced by the

pendency of the charge sheet.

34. The alleged incidents are stated to have occurred on

08.11.2022 and 11.11.2022. The complaint was lodged on

30.01.2023. The petitioners contend that there is a delay of nearly 80

days. In matrimonial disputes, delay cannot always be viewed with

the same strictness as in other offences. A woman in a matrimonial

relationship may attempt reconciliation before approaching the

police. Therefore, delay by itself cannot be a ground to quash the

prosecution against the husband.

17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

35. However, delay assumes some significance while assessing

the allegations against distant or separately living relatives,

particularly when the allegations against them are general and

omnibus. In the present case, the delay, coupled with absence of

specific overt acts against petitioners 2 to 7 and 10, strengthens the

case for quashment insofar as they are concerned.

36. The materials placed before this Court indicate that the

first petitioner and the de facto complainant were living separately in

police quarters and not as part of a joint family with petitioners 2 to

7 and 10. The de facto complainant’s grievance appears to be

principally directed against the first petitioner/husband. The

allegations against the other petitioners are not supported by clear

particulars. They appear to have been included on the general

premise that they supported the first petitioner.

37. Criminal law cannot be set in motion against every relative

of the husband merely because matrimonial discord exists between

the spouses. The continuation of prosecution against petitioners 2 to

18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

7 and 10 would amount to forcing them to undergo the ordeal of trial

without the minimum foundational allegations required in law.

38. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the

prosecution against petitioners 2 to 7 and 10 is an abuse of process

of Court and deserves to be quashed. On a careful reading of the FIR,

final report and the allegations taken at their face value, this Court

finds that the case against the first petitioner/husband cannot be

quashed at this stage. The allegations against him require trial.

39. However, insofar as petitioners 2 to 7 and 10 are

concerned, the allegations are vague, omnibus and bereft of specific

particulars. The essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not

made out against them. Their continuation as accused in the

criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.

19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

Epilogue:

40. The criminal process must remain a shield for the

genuinely aggrieved and not become a sword for collateral vengeance.

Matrimonial discord, when translated into criminal prosecution,

must be examined with judicial sensitivity. The Court must ensure

that the grievance of the wife is not silenced at the threshold when it

discloses a triable case. At the same time, the Court must also

ensure that relatives, whose alleged role is only described in

sweeping and ornamental language, are not condemned to the long

corridor of criminal trial merely because of their relationship with the

husband.

41. In the case on hand, the allegations against the first

petitioner have sufficient factual foundation to proceed to trial. But

the allegations against petitioners 2 to 7 and 10 are too general to

sustain criminal prosecution. Justice, therefore, lies in separating

the grain from the chaff.

20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

42. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly

allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.331 of 2023, pending on the file

of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur, are

quashed insofar as petitioners 2 to 7 and 10 / Accused Nos.2 to

7 and 10 alone are concerned.

43. The Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed insofar as

the first petitioner / Accused No.1 is concerned . The learned

Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur, shall proceed with the

trial against the first petitioner in accordance with law.

44. It is made clear that the observations made in this order

are only for the purpose of deciding this petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court shall decide the case against the first

petitioner independently, on the basis of evidence, uninfluenced by

any observation contained herein. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,

Bodinayakkanur.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Bodinayakanoor,

Theni District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.2451 of 2024

01.06.2026

23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis