SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

E.Sandhya vs State Rep. By on 8 August, 2019

Crl.RC.No.1252 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.08.2019

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

Crl.R.C.No.1252 of 2012
and
MP.No.1 of 2012

E.Sandhya
… Petitioner
– Vs –
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (East),
Coimbatore.
(Crime No.16/2011)
.. Respondent

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and Section401 Cr.P.C., praying to

call for the records and set aside the order dated 18.07.2012 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.5129 of 2012 in C.C.No.704/2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.2, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : No Appearance

For respondent : Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

***

1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.1252 of 2012

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to

set aside the order dated 18.07.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5129 of 2012 in

C.C.No.704/2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore.

2. The de facto complainant is the revision petitioner. The respondent

police registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2011 against the accused for the

offences under Sections 498A and Section406 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. After investigation, the respondent

police laid a Charge Sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Coimbatore and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.704 of 2011. When the

case was posted for trial, the revision petitioner herein/ de facto complainant

filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.5129 of 2012 in C.C.No.704 of 2011 seeking further

investigation. The said petition was dismissed on 18.07.2012 by the learned

Magistrate. Challenging the said order, the de facto complainant preferred the

present revision before this Court.

3. When the matter was listed on 05.08.2019, none appeared on behalf

of the revision petitioner. Today also, there is no appearance for the revision

petitioner. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for

the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

2/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.1252 of 2012

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent would submit that based on the complaint given by the revision

petitioner, the respondent-police registered a case against her husband and in-

laws for the offences under Sections 498A and Section406 of IPC and Section 4 of

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and after completing

investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Coimbatore. The said charge sheet was also taken on file in C.C.No.704 of

2011 and after completing procedural formalities, the learned Magistrate framed

charges against the accused as shown in the complaint. During pendency of

the said case, the de facto complainant filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.5129 of

2012 in C.C.No.704 of 2011 stating that when she was not in the house, the

accused have taken her 20 sovereigns jewels and the same has not been

recovered by the police. Since the Investigating Officer colluded with the

accused, the investigation has not been properly conducted and therefore, the

Court has to direct some other police to investigate the matter further and laid a

charge sheet. After hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the

learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The allegation of the petitioner/de

facto complainant is that the accused had taken 20 sovereigns of jewels and

misappropriated the same and therefore, the respondent laid the charge sheet

for the offence under Section 406 of IPC. The learned Magistrate also framed

3/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.1252 of 2012

the charges against the accused for the offence under Section 498A of IPC for

harassment, Section 406 of IPC for misappropriation and also Section 4 of The

Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the prosecution has completed the

investigation and laid a charge sheet before the Court and the Court has also

rightly dismissed the protest petition, which warrants no interference.

5. There is no material placed before the learned Magistrate to show that

the Investigating Officer colluded with the accused and filed false report. The

Investigating Officer laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 406 of IPC

for misappropriation and also Section 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. The

learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the de facto

complainant. This Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the

Court below.

6. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the

revision petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovering the

jewels weighing 20 sovereigns. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition

is closed.

08.08.2019
Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order
KMI

4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.1252 of 2012

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Coimbatore.

2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (East),
Coimbatore.

3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras-104.

5/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.RC.No.1252 of 2012

P.VELMURUGAN, J

KMI

Crl.R.C.No.1252 of 2012

08.08.2019

6/6
http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation