Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.7817 of 2017 in C.C.No.115 of 2013 dated 18.03.2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, dismissing the petition for discharge filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent/ defacto complainant, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.25 of 2012 dated 13.08.2012 against four persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 498(A) and 497 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid the final report against four persons including the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 01:29:44 pm ) petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.115 of 2013 and is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai. When the calendar case was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner/fourth accused invoking Section 239 Cr.P.C. has filed the above petition seeking discharge from the above case.

9. It is pertinent to mention that, as already pointed out, FIR came to be registered for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 498(A) and 497 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but charge sheet came to be filed only for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby excluding Section 497 IPC. But the learned Magistrate, without considering the charge sheet properly, has taken the case on file in C.C.No.115 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 497 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/06/2025 01:29:44 pm )

11. As already pointed, the Investigating Officer, though the case was registered for the offence under Section 497 IPC, has rightly excluded the same in the final report.

12. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (3) SCC 39 has declared Section 497 of IPC as unconstitutional and thereby decriminalized the offence of adultery, but the learned Magistrate, without considering the above aspect, has also taken cognizance for the offence under Section 497 IPC in a mechanical fashion and when the same was brought to the notice of the Magistrate, who conducted enquiry in the discharge petition, has also failed to apply his mind and proceeded to dismiss the discharge petition in a very casual and mechanical manner. Hence, the question of invoking Section 497 IPC against the petitioner does not arise at all.