Mother-In-Law Accused Of Buying Land With Couple’s Money And Assaulting Son-In-Law: Madras HC Refuses To Quash Case

The second respondent alleged that he and his wife had remitted money for the purchase of land in Puducherry, but the property was purchased in the names of the petitioner, his mother-in-law, and her son.

He further alleged that, when he questioned them, the accused assaulted him and caused injuries.

Police registered Crime No. 11 of 2025 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, and filed a final report, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 329 of 2026.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings insofar as they concerned her, arguing that no specific overt act was attributed to her and that the investigation was defective.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to consider quashing proceedings, but the Court should not assess witness credibility or resolve disputed questions of fact at that stage.

In considering a challenge to a complaint or charge sheet, the Court examines whether the allegations, taken at face value, contain the ingredients of the alleged offences and whether the prerequisites for cognizance have been met; the evidentiary merits are for trial.

The Court relied on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (4) SCC 351; CBI v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686; and M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi & Anr., Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, decided 2 December 2019, as cited in the judgment.

The final report and witness statements contained allegations that both accused induced the complainant to remit money for the land, acquired the property in their own names, and assaulted him when he objected.

The Court considered those allegations sufficient, at the quashing stage, to warrant proceeding on the charged offences.

The petitioner’s objections—including the absence of specific overt acts, the asserted failure to examine the complainant or victim, and any dispute about the evidence—raised factual matters that could not be resolved by weighing the materials in a quashing petition.

The Court therefore left the merits, including any challenge concerning malice, to be addressed through the trial process.

Her personal appearance was dispensed with, subject to her appearance for furnishing copies, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 BNSS and judgment; the trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months of receiving the order.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.