NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India stayed the Madras High Court judgment as well as further proceedings in a pending criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar passed the order while hearing a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) filed by Balachandar and others.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Arundhati Katju, along with Advocates Mr. Rahul Jagannathan, Mr. Aaditya Mishra, Ms. Ritika Meena, Mr. Abhiroop Singh, Ms. Muskaan Khurana, Mr. Dewansh Shukla, and AOR Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey. The respondents were represented by Advocate Mr. B. Karunakaran, Mr. Kamesh Gaud, and Mr. Akhil Krishnan.
Background of the Case:
The matter originates from a criminal complaint lodged by Mr. Purusothaman (the defacto complainant and father of the victim, Mourisha) before the All Women Police Station, Adyar, Chennai. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No. 13 of 2020, and upon completion of the investigation, a final report was filed. The case was taken on file as C.C. No. 1032 of 2022 (initially before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, later pending before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate/XVIII Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai) against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law.
The accused persons had previously approached the Madras High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC in Crl.O.P. No. 17853 of 2024 seeking to quash the charge sheet. They raised multiple grounds, including that no marital relationship subsisted at the time of the complaint, the complainant lacked authorization to file on behalf of his daughter, the absence of a wound certificate for offences under Section 352 IPC, and that stridhana property claims could not be extended to the parents following recent precedents.
However, a single bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, dismissed the quash petition on August 30, 2024. The High Court held that a subsequent consent divorce granted by an Australian court on June 9, 2020, could not erase or exonerate cognizable criminal acts committed in India while the marriage was in subsistence.
Supreme Court Proceedings:
Aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings, the petitioners moved the Apex Court.
During the hearing on October 29, 2026, the Supreme Court allowed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 333189/2026) seeking to implead the alleged victim as Respondent No. 3.
The Bench issued notice on both the Special Leave Petition and the application for condonation of delay, making it returnable by February 17, 2027. Advocate Mr. B. Karunakaran appeared on advance notice and waived notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
Crucially, granting interim relief to the petitioners, the Court ordered:
“In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of further proceedings in C.C. No.1032 of 2022 pending on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate/XVIII Judicial Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.”
