Madras HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Accused’s Mother Over Alleged Threat To Release Woman’s Private Videos

The de facto complainant alleged that A1 had a sexual relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and that A1, along with A2–A4, committed gang rape and physical abuse.

She further alleged that the petitioner, A5 and A1’s mother, threatened to release private videos of her on social media after she reported the alleged offences.

The police registered Crime No. 663 of 2022 and, after investigation, filed a final report; the Magistrate took cognizance in PRC No. 33 of 2026 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 354D, 376 and 506(2) IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, contending that there were no specific allegations or materials against her to make out criminal intimidation.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; in exercising that power, the Court should not determine disputed facts or assess the reliability of witness statements as if conducting a trial.

Relying on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2019) 4 SCC 351, and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686, the Court stated that disputed evidence and the accused’s defence are matters for trial.

It also relied on M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr. (Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019), for the principle that a quashing court considers whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of an offence, without enquiring into the validity of the evidence.

The Court examined the final report and witness statements and found specific allegations against the petitioner sufficient, at this stage, to attract Section 506(i) IPC; it considered the truth of those allegations a matter for trial.

It further held that the petitioner’s grounds involved disputed questions of fact and that her status as A1’s mother did not, by itself, absolve her, particularly given the allegation that she knew of the other accused persons’ conduct.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court declined to evaluate the evidence or determine whether the proceedings were malicious at the quashing stage.

The order describes the cognizance offences as including Section 506(2) IPC, while its discussion of the allegation against A5 refers to Section 506(i) IPC.

It left the petitioner at liberty to raise all grounds before the trial court; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.