Madras High Court
Mr.Prabhu vs The State Rep. By on 25 November, 2021
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On : 24.06.2022
Delivered On : 13.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.8327 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.5488 of 2021
Mr.Prabhu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
Periyathatchur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
(Crime No.193 of 2019)
2. Gowsalya
3. Suseela
(R-3 impleaded as per Order in
Crl.M.P.No.12093 of 2021 in
Crl.O.P.No.8327 of 2021
dated 25.11.2021) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in P.R.C.No.24 of 2020 on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District and
quash the same.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Senthamizhan
For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
R2- Died
Mr.R.Murugesan for R3
ORDER
This Petition has been filed to quash the case in P.R.C.No.24 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
2. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner and the deceased were acquaintances. They were in relationship and subsequently, the Petitioner was selected in C.R.P.F. Due to his avocation, he was posted in many parts of the Country. Therefore, he could not continue with the relationship. While so, the marriage of the Petitioner was fixed by his parents. When the deceased Gowsalya came to know about the same, she wanted to verify with the Petitioner. At that time, the Petitioner is alleged to have informed her that 2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 Petitioner's mother and brother harassed him that if he does not consider the marriage proposal by the mother, they will commit suicide. Therefore, he had to heed to his mother's advice. He also advised the deceased to heed to her mother's advice and live accordingly. Feeling dejected, she is alleged to have consumed rat repellent paste. She herself had informed her mother that she had consumed rat repellent paste. Since she vomitted, the mother of the deceased took her with the help of the maternal uncle of the deceased to nearby Hospital. Then the victim was referred to Villupuram Government Medical College Hospital for further treatment. She is alleged to have given a statement of the incident to the Police from the hospital bed which had been recorded as complaint statement. Based on the statement of the said Gowsalya, the FIR was registered. Subsequent to the registration of the case, the deceased was transferred to Government Stanely Medical College Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. While undergoing treatment in Government Stanely Hospital, she died. Therefore, the case was converted as offences under Sections 417, 306 of IPC r/w. Section 4 of TNPHW Act. Now the Petitioner had moved this Petition seeking to quash the charge sheet pending before the Court of the learned Principal District 3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 and Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.46 of 2022.
3.It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the ingredients of the FIR, the allegation that the Petitioner instigated or pushed her to commit suicide, are not found anywhere either in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., or in the statement given by the deceased while undergoing treatment in the Hospital. Therefore, he states that the pendency of the case is abuse of process of Court which warrants interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., exercising extraordinary powers of the High Court. Therefore, he seeks to quash the chargesheet which was numbered and taken cognisance by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram. It is nothing but harassment. Also, there are no ingredients of Section 417 of IPC from the materials available before the Court concerned. He had invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the List of Witness in the typed set annexed to this Petition.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the following rulings in support of his submissions: 4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 4.1. (2001) 9 SCC 618 in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:
“19.The picture which emerges from a cumulative reading and assessment of the material available is this: presumably because of disinclination on the part of the accused to drop the deceased at her sister's residence the deceased felt disappointed, frustrated and depressed. She was overtaken by a feeling of shortcomings which she attributed to herself. She was overcome by a forceful feeling generating within her that in the assessment of her husband she did not deserve to be his life partner. The accused Ramesh may or must have told the deceased that she was free to go anywhere she liked. Maybe that was in a fit of anger as contrary to his wish and immediate convenience the deceased was emphatic on being dropped at her sister's residence to see her. Presumably the accused may have said some such thing — you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like. The deceased being a pious Hindu wife felt that having being given in marriage by her parents to her husband, she had no other place to go excepting the house of her husband and if the husband had “freed” her she thought impulsively that the only thing which she could do was to kill herself, die peacefully and thus free herself according to her understanding of the husband's wish. Can this be called an abetment of suicide? Unfortunately, the trial court misspelt out the meaning of the expression attributed by the deceased to her husband as suggesting that the accused had made her free to commit suicide. Making the deceased free — to go wherever she liked and to do whatever she wished, does not and cannot mean even by stretching that the accused had made the deceased free “to commit suicide” as held by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021
20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 4.2. (2010) 12 SCC 190 in the case of S.S.Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another. The relevant portions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner are extracted as under:6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 “22. The learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] . In this case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the appellant, Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court in para 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” In this case, the Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn.
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC p. 90, para 17) “17. … The court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”.
The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021
26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
27. When we carefully scrutinise and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under Section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under Section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside.” 4.3. (2020) 15 SCC 359 in the case of Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 IPC. (See Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] )
10. The term “instigation” under Section 107 IPC has been explained in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] as follows: (SCC p. 611, paras 16-17) “16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
17. Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction” (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).” (emphasis in original)
11. Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (See Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146] .)
12. We are of the opinion that the evidence on record does not warrant conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC. There is no proximity between the Panchayat held in September 2001 and the suicide committed by Arvind on 23-2-2002. The incident of slapping by the appellant in September 2001 cannot be the sole ground to hold him responsible for instigating the deceased to commit suicide. As the allegations against all the three accused are similar, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant after acquitting the other two accused.
13. We are not in agreement with the findings of the trial court that the deceased (Arvind) committed suicide in view of the continuous threats by the accused regarding his being implicated in a false case of demand of dowry. The evidence does not disclose that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There was neither a provocation nor encouragement by the appellant to the deceased to commit an act of suicide. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty of abetting the suicide by the deceased.” 4.4. (2021) SCC Online SC 715 in the case of Velladurai Vs. State the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“14. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.
15. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-
accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 417/2009, as also, the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and Section 4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, are hereby quashed and set aside.
17. By order dated 14.02.2020, the appellant herein-accused was released on bail by this Court on the terms and conditions as may be fixed by the trial Court. In view of this, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.” 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021
5.Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner stating that there are sufficient materials available in the statement given by the deceased while undergoing treatment as well as the list of witnesses, among whom Suseela the mother of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that this Petition does not warrant any interference by this Court, that the Petitioner can face the trial and what are all argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is to be considered as valuable defence available to the Petitioner/Accused before the trial Court. Further, only due to the attitude of the Petitioner, the deceased had consumed rat repellent paste which resulted in her death.
6.On perusal of the Judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, which is a case based on the appreciation of evidence before the trial Court. During trial, there was evidence on the side of the Prosecution regarding dying declaration given by the deceased. 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 There was suicide note by the deceased. In the reported decision, the deceased had committed self-immolation during evidence it was brought up. At the time, when the woman suffered, the Parents and Husband came to rescue by blanket around her. In that case, the woman had committed suicide as her husband had not accompanied her to her sister's house. She was under the impression that having been married to a person by her parents, he is duty bound to her family. If the husband failed to take care, she has to go there alone. But, she has alleged to have committed self- immolation as the husband refused to accompany her to her sister's house. During trial, it was illustrated on behaff of the Accused/Husband by the Prosecution, the husband was a caring husband. Based on the appreciation of evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had arrived at a conclusion that the offence under Section 306 of IPC was not made out against the husband. There was no instigation on the side of the husband for the deceased for committing suicide. The facts of this case are different. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel is rejected. What had been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is to be considered only during trial. As rightly pointed out by the learned 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the learned Counsel for the third Respondent, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is to be treated as valuable defence available to the Accused which cannot be considered by this Court invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the final report.
7. In the ruling cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359 in the case of Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, the Accused had not instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Neither was there provocation nor encouragement by the Accused. In this case before the trial Court, the Petitioner herein is alleged to have promised to marry the girl and on such promise, he had intercourse with her. The deceased was believing the words of the Petitioner. After the Petitioner got employment in CRPF, his family arranged his marriage with another girl. Therefore, the deceased in this case felt dejected which made her to consume rat repellent paste and she had herself informed her mother about the same and informed the same to the treated Doctor wherein statement was recorded by the Police from her. Subsequently, she died. Therefore, based on her oral statement, 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 the Petitioner was arrayed as an Accused for her disappointment resulting to end her life. Therefore, it is not abetment. On the other hand, it is indifference that after having pleasure of sexual intercourse with an unmarried girl on the pretext of marrying her. Therefore, from the normal human conduct, the Petitioner is the cause for the deceased to have consumed poison for her helplessness. Therefore, the said ruling is not helpful for the case of the Petitioner.
9. In yet another ruling cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner reported in (2021) SCC online SC 715 in the case of Velladurai Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, the appellant along with his partner had consumed poison, partner died. After four days of treatment, the Accused recovered. Therefore, for the charge against the Accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, based on the appreciation of evidence, the trial Court convicted the Accused. This Court dismissed the appeal. Against which, the Appellant preferred the Criminal Appeal wherein based on the evidence available, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had acquitted the Accused. Here, it is not for this Court to consider the circumstances 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner seeking to quash the final report. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the learned Counsel for the third Respondent, what are all argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be considered by this Court invoking extraordinary powers and is to be considered to be subject matter of evidence before the trial Court. Here, the Petitioner in the promise of marrying the deceased had been in a relationship and on that pretext he had indulged in sexual intercourse. After getting employment in Central Reserve Police Force, he had made arrangements to marry a girl of his parents' choice thereby cheating the victim after having sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marrying her. Therefore, she felt that the Petitioner herein had exploited her and cheated her which made her disappointed and depressed forcing her to the extreme step of ending her life unable to bear the trauma, state of mind being cheated. Therefore, the claim of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not present in the place of occurrence immediate before her consuming rat repellent paste (poison), he had not pushed her as he was not in the place of occurrence at the time of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 occurrence cannot be considered acceptable and reasonable considering the fact that her statement clearly gives out the circumstances leading her to make a decision to end her life which can also be treated as a dying declaration. Therefore, what had been stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be considered by invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), the fact of death of the deceased by suicide and the reason for the same is available from her statement made to police from the hospital bed and also from the statement of her mother and uncle who had accompanied her to hospital and who were there till her death. Therefore, what had been stated and what had been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner are all to be treated as valuable defence available during trial and not while invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the reliance placed on by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is rejected.
10. In the light of the materials available before this Court and the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and learned 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and the learned Counsel for the third Respondent that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is treated as valuable defence to be considered only during trial and not at this stage to quash the final report. In the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while quashing the FIR and charge sheet, the Court shall not be lenient and it shall consider only in rare cases, use the power sparingly. Only when there are lack of materials furnished by the Prosecution, the Court can quash the FIR or chargesheet. Here, in this case, there are sufficient materials as per the statements of the witnesses. Under those circumstances, it is not a fit case for invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Therefore, this Petition is not maintainable.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of 19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 the said case as early as possible. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.07.2022 dh/SRM Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Periyathatchur Police Station, Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
dh 21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis crl.OP.No. 8327 of 2021 Pre-delivery order made in Crl.O.P.No.8327 of 2021 13.07.2022 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis