LexMARIPPAN & ANR. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1674 : 2025 INSC 163 Marippan & Anr. v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2025) 24 January 2025 [Ahsanuddin Amanullah* and K. V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition seeking quashing of the chargesheet in the criminal case qua the appellants-parents. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Prosecution case that complainant alleged that she was in a relationship with the son of the appellants and established physical relations with him only on the assurance that he would marry her – On one occasion, the son of the appellants had taken her to meet them where they also agreed to accept her as their daughter in-law, but later, the son informed her that the appellants had fixed his marriage with someone else – Case of cheating against the appellants- parents and his son by the complainant – Petition u/s.482 by the appellants seeking quashing of the chargesheet in the criminal case qua them – High Court dismissed the petition – Correctness: Held: Trial against the appellants would be an abuse of the process of the court – From the allegations in the complaint itself, no act or conduct on the part of the appellants can be termed to be illegal per se, much less criminal in nature – No ingredients of any offence under the IPC appear to be forthcoming, as such, no offence under the ambit of s.415 IPC made out against the appellants – Submission that the appellants’ statement/conduct led the complainant to develop intimate relations with the son cannot be accepted, looking to the complainant’s age and educational qualification – From a bare perusal of the complaint, it is evincible that the main allegations are against the appellants’ son – Son * Author [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1675 Marippan & Anr. v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr. had filed a petition u/s.482, which was later withdrawn – Grant of relief to the appellants would not adversely impact the case against the appellants’ son – Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside – Proceedings insofar as they relate to the appellants quashed. [Paras 9, 10, 12] Judicial deprecation – High Court making observation against third party who is not before it – In a petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing the chargesheet in a criminal case, the High Court made unnecessary observation that if this petition is allowed, the petitioners’ son will spoil women of marriageable age in the same manner, is disapproved – High Court, should have been cognisant that the petitoners’ son was not party before it – Observation was made without any notice/opportunity to the petitioners’ son and without the benefit of having his say/ version before it – Said observation/extract in the impugned judgment deleted from the High Court’s records. [Paras 15-17] Case Law Cited Vishnu Kumar Shukla v State of Uttar Pradesh [2023] 13 SCR 1071 : (2023) 15 SCC 502; Anu Kumar v State (UT Administration), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3454 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Petition u/s.482 CrPC; Quashing of the chargesheet in the criminal case; Abuse of the process of the court; Intimate relations; Adverse impact; High Court making observation against third party; Notice/ opportunity; Deletion of extract from the High Court’s records. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2022 of the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP (MD) No. 15448 of 2022 1676 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Avinash Wadhwani, G. Balaji, Neeleshwar Pavani, Advs. for the Appellants. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Devyani Gupta, Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Danish Saifi, A. Renganath, R. Ayyam Perumal, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Ahsanuddin Amanullah & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. BACKGROUND: 3. The appellants have moved this Court against the Judgment1 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court2, whereby their prayer for quashing the Chargesheet in the criminal case3 qua them has been rejected, by dismissal of their petition under Section 4824 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735. 4. As per the prosecution story, the c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.