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