1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.171 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1. R.Sheela 2. Dr.Keerthi 3. Dr.Umashankar ..Petitioners/Accused Vs. 1. State represented by:: The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai South, In Cr.No.22 of 2010, Madurai District. ..1st Respondent/Complainant 2. S.Suddanthira Devi ..2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.22 of 2010 dated 01.12.2010 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioners :Mr.E.Somasundaram For Respondent :Mrs.Devasena, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)for R.1 O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crime No.22 of 2010 dated 01.12.2010 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same. 2. Heard Mr.E.Somasundaram, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.Devasena, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) takes notice for the first respondent. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been ranked as accused in a case in which they have not committed any offence. However, they have been dragged by the second respondent/the de-facto complainant and the respondent police have also started the investigation. He would further submit in his argument that the dispute between the parties is under the guise of property dispute and it has been brought to under Sections 498(A), 506(ii) and 406(ii) I.P.C. and the said allegations made in the complaint are not true and therefore they have to be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Sie) would submit in her argument that the investigation was conducted and completed and the charge sheet was also filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned on 04.01.2011. She would also further submit that the petition has become infructuous. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court could see that the complaint filed against the petitioners in Cr.No.22 of 2010, on the file of the first respondent police has been investigated and the charge sheet has also been filed on 04.01.2011. The petitioners' file has been produced before the Court on 05.01.2011 and there is no F.I.R., pending on the file of the first respondent police and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners has become infructuous. However, the petitioners are not remedyless and they are always entitled to proceed in accordance with law against the charge sheet. With the aforesaid observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( CO ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR ssl To 1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai South, Madurai District. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 1CC TO MR. E. SOMASUNDARAM, ADVOCATE,S R: 1509: DM:2011:JANURARY:18: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.171 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 11.01.2011 2P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/