IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26 .11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI CRL.O.P.Nos.14878 of 2010 Dr.Angela Sundarraj .. Petitioner/Accused No.1 vs. T. Joseph Sundarraj .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the reliefs as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.R. Vivekanandan For respondent : Mr.R. Dakshinamurthy O R D E R The petitions are filed seeking a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.447 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and quash the same. 2. The respondent has given a complaint against the petitioner and 10 others for an alleged offence punishable under Secs.191, 182, 209, and 420 IPC. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 26.1.1994 at Chennai and a female child was born. The petitioner is a Dentist by profession and the respondent was working as a Supervisor in a private company. There were difference of opinion between the parties and the parties have approached various forums including a complaint given by the petitioner against the respondent in Cr.No.22/2006 on the file of the All Women Police station, Tambaram. The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the charges on file in C.C.No.321/2007 for the offence under Sec.498(A), 406 and 506(ii) IPC. She had also filed IDOP No.156 of 2008 for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent has filed IDOP No.89 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent and his counsel approached the petitioner for settlement for which, the petitioner was not agreeable. While so, the respondent had given a private complaint against the petitioner, her counsel and others alleging that the counsel, who is appearing for the petitioner, demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to settle the dispute between the parties. On those allegations and other allegations, the respondent had filed a private complaint and the learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance of the offences in C.C No.447 of 2010 and aggrieved by which, the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is before this Court to quash the entire proceedings. 4. Mr.N.R. Elango, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has unnecessarily dragged the counsel who is appearing for the petitioner with false allegations and there is no merit in the complaint. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner and the respondent has matrimonial disputes between them and they are represented by their respective counsels, while so, the petitioner has come forward with such frivolous allegation. 5. On the contrary, Mr. R. Dakshinamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has made many allegations against the petitioner and others which are true. The learned counsel pointed out that the truth in the allegations can be proved only during the trial and this Court cannot conduct a rowing enquiry by exercising the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The perusal of the affidavit, in support of the petition and the private complaint given by the respondent, would reveal the relationship between the parties are very strained and they are in loggerhead before civil and criminal courts. The respondent has come forward with the present private complaint stating certain allegations against the counsel who appeared for the petitioner. 8. There is an allegation stating that the respondent received an advocate notice dated 9.9.2009 and after receipt of such notice, he contacted to a cell number given in the notice and he was asked to come to the counsel's office at Chrompet. According to the respondent, Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, an advocate was present in the office and he demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-to settle the cases pending between the respondent and the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the said advocate has also used filthy languages and insulted the respondent. The complaint details various allegations against the petitioner. 9. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on file. The complaint mentions offences punishable under Sec.191 for giving false evidence; Sec.182 for giving false information; Sec.209 for dishonestly making false claim in the Court.; Sec.211 false charge of offence made with intent injured; sec.389 putting person in fear of accusation of offence in order to commit extortion. Sec.420 for cheating and 498 enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman r/w 120-b criminal conspiracy. 10. The main allegation in the complaint seems to be that the counsel for the petitioner had issued a notice and while contacted by phone, the counsel asked him to come to his office and demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to settle the matter between the husband and wife. The other allegations are against the petitioner and mere perusal of the allegations, shows that the entire complaint itself is devoid of merits and there is no prima-facie case. None of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ingredients of the various offences mentioned in the complaint is made out. 11. Under Sec.482 Cr.P.C, Courts can interfere in a proceeding if it is found that there is abuse of process of law and the continuance of the proceedings is an harassment to the parties. Therefore, it is a fit case to interfere. 12. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.447 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram is quashed in entirety. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sr To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram 2.-do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram. +1cc to Mr.R.Dakshinamurthy, Advocate Sr 84564 KSK(CO) km/2.12. Crl.O.P.No.14878 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/