1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.385 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 R.Kalpana ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District. 2.J.Shenbagajothi ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records with respect to charge sheet in C.C.No.385 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and quash the proceedings as against this petitioner is concerned by allowing the criminal original petition.. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi for M/S.Hall Mark Associates For Respondents : Mrs.S.Devasena Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.Ajmalkhan for R2 O R D E R This petition is filed by the 4th accused to quash the charge sheet filed against her in C.C.No.385 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the sister of the first accused and the defacto complainant viz., the wife of the first accused has stated that the petitioner informed the father of the defacto complainant to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for allowing the defacto complainant to live with the first accused and except the defacto complainant, no other witnesses has spoken about the role played by the petitioner. As the petitioner happens to be the sister of the first accused she has been willfully arrayed as one of the accused and no materials are available to file a charge sheet against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that P.W.1, during the investigation, has stated the role played by the petitioner in demanding Rs.2,00,000/- and the other witnesses have wrongly named the person as Shobana instead of Kalpana. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1349 in the matter of Sunder Babu and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in support of his contention and submitted that when the criminal proceeding is a malafide one and it was initiated with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused the same can be quashed and therefore, as per the above judgment, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 5. According to me, in the above judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court has relied upon the judgment reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and also held that while dealing with an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision and the Court should not embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of the evidence and sustainability of the accusation. In this case, no doubt except P.W.1 namely the defacto complainant, other witnesses have not spoken about the role played by the petitioner. But P.W.1 has stated that the petitioner demanded of Rs.2,00,000/- for allowing the defacto complainant to live with her husband. Whether the statement made by the defacto complainant is true or not can be seen only during the trial not at this stage. This Court has to take into consideration the statement made by P.W.1, which is the basis for filing charge sheet against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any reason to quash the charge sheet in this petition. 6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/S.Hall Mark Associates, Advocate (SR.No.7019) +1 CC to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate (SR.No.6904) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.385 of 2011 16.03.2011 vsm NSV/29.3.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/