High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 24.06.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023and Crl.M.P.No.11290 of 2023Lavanya Kumari... Petitioner Vs1. State Represented By The Inspector of Police, W-9 AWPS, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600049.2. Jayalakshmi3. Mahalakshmi... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order made in Crl.M.P.No.860 of 2022 in CC.No.35 of 2021 passed by the Learned Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 dated 10.03.2023 and set aside the same.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selva ThirumuruganFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side)For R2 and R3 : Mr.R.Nesarajan ORDERPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order made in Crl.M.P.No.860 of 2022 in CC.No.35 of 2021 dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008, thereby allowing the discharge petition filed by the respondents 2 and 3 herein.2. The petitioner is the complainant. She lodged a complaint before the first respondent alleging that she got married to the first accused on 18.11.2010. At the time of marriage, there was a huge demand of dowry which was fulfilled by her family members. However, even after the marriage, the first accused and his family members continued to demand additional dowry. They also tortured her to the core and driven out from her matrimonial home. Hence, the complaint.3. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.3 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(1) of IPC. After completion of investigation, filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.35 of 2021.4. Pending framing of charges, the respondents 2 and 3 filed a petition to discharge them from the charges levelled against them and the same was Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this revision.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though there are specific allegations as against the respondents 2 and 3 herein, the Trial Court mechanically discharged them from all the charges. He further submitted that there was a typographical error in mentioning the year as 2011 instead of 2016. The Trial Court found fault with the said error and consequently discharged the respondents 2 and 3 from the charges. As per the allegation, the second respondent had threatened the petitioner that she would solemnize the marriage between her daughter and the first accused. However, her daughter was aged about 14 years on the date of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the Trial Court found that there could not have been any circumstances to facilitate the marriage of a minor girl with the husband of the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as first accused.6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 herein submitted that even according to the petitioner, the respondents 2 and 3 herein threatened the petitioner that they would marry her husband to the daughter of the second respondent herein, who was minor on the date of the alleged occurrence. Except this allegation, there was no other specific averments to Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023attract the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) of IPC. That apart, all the allegations are vague in nature and do not specify the date of occurrence. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly discharged the respondents 2 and 3 from the alleged offences and it does not require any interference by this Court.7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.8. There are totally four accused, in which the respondents 2 and 3 are arrayed as A2 and A3 in CC.No.35 of 2021, on the file of the Trial Court. Based on the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR and filed a final report, thereby charging the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) of IPC. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a discharge petition to discharge them, on the ground that there are no specific allegations or materials against them to attract the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) of IPC. 9. A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C revealed that there are specific allegations as against the respondents 2 and 3 to attract the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) of IPC. It is relevant to Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023extract the portion of the statement of the petitioner as follows:- Mdhy; vd; ehj;jdhh; kfhyl;Rkp c';f“ bgz;Qqf;F bfhLj;j tujl;riz gzj;ij jpUk;g bfhLj;J tpLfpnwhk; mtis c';fSld; miHr;rpl;L ngh';f vd;whh;/ ,d;bdhU ehj;jdhh; b$ayl;Rkp vd;ndhl kfis jhd; vd; jk;gpf;F fy;ahzk; bra;J itf;f epidr;rpUe;njhk;/ eP te;J mij bfLj;Jtpl;lha; vd;W jpl;o vd;id kdjstpy; fhag;gLj;jpdhh;fs;/ vd; mg;ght[ld; ehd; bry;yhjjhy; mtu;fs; vd; bgw;nwhUld; ehd; ngrf;TlhJ vd;W brhy;yp vd;Dila nghid th';fp itj;Jf; bfhz;L xU ehs; KGtJk; ,ut[ fuz;l; Mg; bra;J tpl;L ,Ul;L U:kpy; vd;id milj;J tpl;lhh;fs;/ nkYk; vdJ mg;ghtpd; brf;a{hpl;o MgP!; Cug;ghf;fj;jpy; ,Uf;fpwJ/ mij vd; fzth; kw;Wk; mtuJ mz;zd; b$auhkY} bgahpy; khw;wp juntz;Lk; vd;W vdJ fztUk; mtUila mz;zd; kw;Wk; mtuJ rnfhjhpfs; nfl;lhh;fs;/ ehd; vd; jk;gp ,Uf;fpwhd; vd brhy;yp kWj;jjhy; vd; ehj;jdhu;fs; kw;Wk; vd; K:j;jhu; Mfpa midtUk; nru;e;J vd; fztuplk; mtis mof;fpu mo btspapy; bjupaf;TlhJ vd; TwpajhYk;. vd; fztUf;F F';g{ bjupa[k; vd;gjhYk;. fhak; btspapy; bjupahj go vd; fztu; vd;id moj;J bfhLikg;gLj;jpdhh;/ nkYk; vd; ehj;jdhu;fs; vd; fztUf;F ntW jpUkzk; bra;J itf;f nghtjhft[k;. ePahf cd; tPl;ow;F brd;W tpL vd brhy;yp vd;id bfhLikgLj;jpdhh;fs;/ kdjstpy; fhag;gLj;jpdhh;fs;/”10. Therefore, there are specific allegations as against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. That apart, it is a continuous offence and as such, though the petitioner failed to mention the specific date of the occurrence, it attracts the offence under Section 498A of IPC. It is also alleged that the first accused, after Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023office hours, did not return to his matrimonial home but instead he used to go to the house of the respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3 used to give ill advise to the first accused to torture the petitioner. Further, they also demanded to transfer the security office which was owned by the petitioner's father in their favour, failing which, they threatened to marry the first accused to the second respondent's daughter. Though the daughter of the second respondent was aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence, the possibility of solemnizing such a marriage cannot be entirely ruled out.11. Further a perusal of the statement recorded from LW.5 also revealed that there are specific allegations as against the respondents 2 and 3 to attract the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) of IPC. LW.5 corroborated the statement of LW.1 viz., the statement of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have discharged the respondents 2 and 3 from the charges.12. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order made in Crl.M.P.No.860 of 2022 in CC.No.35 of 2021 dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008, is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to issue summons to all the accused and proceed with the trial and complete the Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 2023same, within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the respondents 2 and 3 herein. However, the personal appearance of the respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the respondents 2 and 3 shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment.13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.24.06.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnG.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo 1. The Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 20232. The Inspector of Police, W-9 AWPS, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600049.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.1359 of 202324.06.2025Page 8 of 8