Madras High Court
Sangilieswari vs The State Rep. By Its on 23 December, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23/12/2022 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.RC(MD)No.911 of 2022 and Crl.MP(MD)No.11319 of 2022
1.Sangilieswari
2.Mithra : Petitioners/A3 and A4 Vs.
1.The State rep. By Its The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodinayakanur Town Police Station, Theni District.
(In Crime No.2281 of 2020) : R1/Complainant
2.Maharasa : R2/De-facto Complainant (R2 suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court, dated 22/09/2022) Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, Theni District, vide Docket Order No.NIL of 2022 in PRC No.15 of 2022, dated 12/07/2022 by which suo motu impleaded the petitioners as A3 and A4.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.Govindarajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4 O R D E R This criminal revision has been filed against the Docket Order No.NIL of 2022 in Prc No.15 of 2022, dated 12/07/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, Theni District.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that his 2nd daughter namely Lingeshwari was married to one Balamuruga Ganesan some five years back. She was provided with sufficient jewels and house-hold articles, Sreedhana, etc. Because of the marriage, a child was born to them. Right from the marriage, Lingeshwari was ill-treated and not permitted to attend any function. When that was brought to the notice, they warned the respondent and family members. Some three days prior to the suicide, she was stating that she was criminally intimidated by the accused stating that she should not visit her parental home. On 02/07/2002 at about 5.00 pm, his father in law namely Murugan came to his house and took him to his house. He went and saw that Lingeswari was hanging. On the basis of the above said occurrence, a complaint has been lodged stating that the above said Balamuruga Ganesan and his mother Sangilieswari, father Murugan and sister-in-law Mithra are the reason for the above said suicide.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4
3.On the above said occurrence, a case was registered. After completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed stating that because of the continuous ill-treatment, torture and abetment that were made by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide on 02/07/2020 at about 3.00 pm. So all the accused persons were charge sheeted for the offence under section 306 IPC.
4.Seeking discharge, the petitioners namely A3 and A4 filed a petitioner before the trial court and that was dismissed by the trial court. Against which, criminal revision has been preferred on the ground that there was a dispute between the husband and wife, in which these petitioners are no way involved and these petitioners were not shown as accused in the final report and the final report was filed only against A1; these petitioners have been suo motu arrayed as A3 and A4 by the committal court.
5.According to the petitioners, the committal court has no jurisdiction to suo motu implead the petitioners as accused. Only at that time of trial before the Sessions Court, such an exercise can be undertaken.
6.Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4
7.A clarification has been sought from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the manner of taking cognizance by the trial court, since no reason has been assigned by the trial court as against A2 and A3, who are the petitioners herein.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the de-facto complainant has filed a protest petition before the trial court, over the deletion of the petitioners. But the above said petition and the order passed by the trial court are not available in the record, that was submitted by the trial court. In the absence of any such material, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the matter may be remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration due to the the lapse on the part of the trial court in passing a detailed order by considering the protest petition.
9.In the result, this criminal revision is allowed and taking cognizance of by the trial court against the petitioners is set aside and the protest petition filed is ordered to be restored on file. The trial court is permitted to proceed with the protest petition in accordance with law and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depending upon the out come of the above said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4 process, the parties can work their remedy. If they are so aggrieved. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23/12/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/4 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.RC(MD)No.911 of 2022 23/12/2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/4