1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Crl.R.C(MD)No.499 of 2011

Vetrichselvan … Petitioner

Vs

State represented by,
The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Woman Police Station,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkotai District. … Respondent

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment passed in Criminal
Appeal No.91 of 2010, dated 11.03.2011 on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Pudukkottai confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.234 of 2005,
dated 02.07.2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi
and acquit the revision petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundharam

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

ORDER

The petitioner was the first accused in C.C.No.234 of 2005

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi. The case was

instituted based on the information lodged by the petitioner’s

erstwhile wife Malathi. Apart from the petitioner, there were four

other accused. The prosecution examined as many as 10

witnesses. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. On the side of the

defence, no evidence was adduced. The learned trial Judge, while

acquitting the remaining accused, found the petitioner guilty of the

offence under Section 498A of IPC, vide Judgment dated

02.07.2010. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed Criminal

Appeal No.91 of 2010 before the Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. The learned trial Magistrate

had sentenced the petitioner to six months rigorous imprisonment

and levied a fine of Rs.3000/- and default sentence was also

imposed. The Appellate Court, by Judgment dated 11.03.2011

confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the

same, this criminal revision has been filed.

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he would not

challenge the conviction and that he would only plead for

http://www.judis.nic.inmodification of the sentence imposed on him. The petitioner’s
3

counsel pointed out that the marriage between the petitioner and

P.W.1 Malathi was dissolved and thereafter, they have gone their

separate ways and that the petitioner has got remarried and P.W.1

also got remarried. The petitioner is having three children through

his second wife. The petitioner is a Coolie. He was in prison for

about 16 days. The petitioner is also willing to pay a sum of Rs.

10,000/- as compensation to P.W.1.

3.Taking note of these aspects, this Court reduces the

sentence of imprisonment from six months rigorous imprisonment

to the period already undergone. The fine amount is set aside.

However, the petitioner’s counsel states that the petitioner will not

apply for refund of the fine amount. The petitioner is directed to

deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation payable to P.W.1 to

the credit of C.C.No.234 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate, Aranthangi, within eight weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. In the event of failure on the part of the

petitioner to do so, he will have to undergo three months simple

imprisonment.

4.With this modification, this criminal revision case stands

partly allowed.

28.06.2019

http://www.judis.nic.inIndex : Yes/No
4

Internet : Yes/No
rmi
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi

To

1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
All Woman Police Station,
Aranthangi,
Pudukkotai District.

2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
Pudukkottai.

3.The Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.

Crl.R.C(MD)No.499 of 2011

http://www.judis.nic.in
5

28.06.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in