Madras High Court
N.Arumugam vs State Represented By on 17 October, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14194 & 14197 of 2024
N.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Arani All Women Police Station,
Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.
Crime No.01/20211
2.E.Sudha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w. 442 of
BNSS to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.02 of 2015 dated
22.09.2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Arani,
Tiruvannamalai District confirming the order of conviction dated 05.01.2015
passed in C.C.No.239 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at
Arani and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two months, for the offence punishable
under Section 498(A) IPC.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Thankira
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : M/s.E.Sudha
Party-in-Person
ORDER
The petitioner along with his mother and alleged second wife were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Arani in C.C.No.239 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 498A r/w. 109, 494, 406 r/w. 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court by judgment dated 05.01.2015 acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 r/w. 34 IPC, Section 494 r/w. 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act but convicted him under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. As regards the other two accused, both were acquitted from all charges. Aggrieved against the conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2015 before the learned Additional District Judge, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 22.09.2021 dismissed the appeal 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024 recording that in spite of sufficient time granted, appellant's side argument not advanced, appellant called absent and no representation of the appellant's side. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.
2.The case projected against the petitioner and the other two accused before the Trial Court is that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was held on 24.05.2002 at Chandira Pachaiappa Mudaliar Marriage Hall, Paiyoorkulam, Arani. During the marriage, 30 sovereigns jewels and customary sridhana articles were presented. Further, customary presents during occasions were also presented. The defacto complainant could not get pregnant, it was pointed by her mother-in-law, she was harassed, abused and ill-treated. The defacto complainant and the petitioner took treatment at Akash Fertility Hospital wherein it was found that the defacto complainant was not at fault and the petitioner had some complications but not willing to accept the same, the harassment continued and finally, the defacto complainant was chased out of the matrimonial home. In the meanwhile, the petitioner developed relationship with one Thamarai/A3 and married her on 29.10.2010 at Adiparasakthi Temple, Melmaruvathur. Hence complaint lodged and case registered. On 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024 completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.12 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the defence, Ex.D1 and ex.D2 marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the Sessions Court dismissed the same.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the defacto complainant deserted the matrimonial home and she was living with her family. On presumption and assumption, an exaggerated complaint lodged and the Trial Court finding that there is no entrustment of gold jewels, no proof for the second marriage and demand of dowry, acquitted the petitioner and others. With regard to Section 498A IPC, merely on the oral evidence of P.W.1, her parents and family members, the petitioner was convicted. The Lower Appellate Court not considered the petitioner's plight and also the petitioner's submissions that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, in which, the defacto complainant's father P.W.2 and family members signed. As per the compromise agreed that on 09.08.2015, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024 the defacto complainant and another Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid after withdrawal of the case. This being so, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on technicality. Against which, the present revision is filed.
4.During the proceedings, the petitioner and the defaco complainant/third respondent appeared before this Court, filed an affidavit confirming the compromise along with the joint compromise memo. The respondent police who is present before this Court confirmed the identity of the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is not inclined to further pursue the case against the petitioner and she is willing to compound the offence. She received the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and gave no objection to compound the offence.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that on the complaint of the defacto complainant, case registered by the respondent police, initially C.S.R. assigned and after enquiry, case registered. On examining the witness and collecting the documents, charge sheet filed. The defacto complainant, estranged wife of the petitioner, her parents and relatives were examined to prove the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024 harassment. The persons who witnessed the marriage also examined in the Trial Court. The Trial Court giving reasons had acquitted the petitioner for all the offences except the offence under Section 498AIPC and acquitted the petitioner's mother and his alleged second wife from all charges. He further submitted that against the acquittal, neither the prosecution nor the defacto complainant preferred any appeal. He would further submit that after the conviction by the Trial Court, compromise entered between the petitioner and the defacto complainant along with her family members and the defacto complainant given an undertaking not to further pursue the complaint and to withdraw the same. Now, the defacto complainant filed an affidavit and a joint compromise memo filed which were verified and found to be correct. He further submitted that in view of the fact that criminal case stemming out of matrimonial discord and now got resolved, the respondent police has no objection to compound the offence.
6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that initially on the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, case registered against the petitioner and his mother and alleged second wife. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024 under Section 498A IPC and acquitted the other two accused. During appeal proceedings, compromise entered upon between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and now she has no objection to compound the offence. An affidavit filed by the defacto complainant along with a joint compromise memo to that effect. This Court enquired the defacto complainant present before this Court about the memorandum of compromise and her acceptance to compound the offence. The defacto complainant confirmed the compromise. Hence, this Court is inclined to compound the offence and discharge the petitioner from the above case.
7.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.10.2024 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cse 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse To
1. The Inspector of Police, Arani All Women Police Station, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Additional District Judge, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Judicial Magistrate, Arani.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024
17.10.2024 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis