Dismissed

Sakthi Devi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Aug 2013CRL RC(MD)/485/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court confirmed the trial court's order refusing to implead a respondent whose prior proceedings had been quashed. The court directed the trial judge to rely only on existing evidence and referred the matter to meditation.

What did the court decide?

The order of the trial Court refusing to implead the fourth respondent was confirmed.

Sakthi Devi Vs the Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.08.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Crl.R.C.(MD) No.485 of 2013

¶6

Sakthidevi

¶7

S/o.Arumugasamy 73A Selvanayagapuram, Tuticorin.

¶8

... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Defacto Complainant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tuticorin.

¶11

..Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶12

2.Praveenkumar

¶13

S/o.Shanthanakrishnan No.27 Vaigai Colony, Anna Nagar, Madurai.

¶14

3.Vijayalakshmi W/o.Shanthanakrishnan

¶15

... Respondent/Respondent/Accused

¶16

4.Shanmugam S/o.Gurusamy Nadar A63 Shanthi Nikethan Apartments, Annanagar, Madurai.-20.

¶17

... Respondent/ impleaded respondent

¶18

(R4 impleaded as per the order of this Court made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 dated 05.08.2013)

¶19

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2010 of 2011 in C.C.No.236 of 2009 dated 14.05.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathishbabu For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶21

For respondents 2 and 3 : Mr.J.Barathan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For respondent No.4 : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.2010 of 2011 in C.C.No.236 of 2009 dated 14.05.2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

¶25

The revision petitioner is the de-facto complainant/wife. The second respondent is the husband/accused No.1. She preferred a complaint against her husband and in-laws and the same has been registered in Crime No.22 of 2008 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to her, the second respondent and the petitioner/complainant are husband and wife and the third respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The 4^th respondent is the maternal uncle of the second respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner as well as the second respondent are Dentists. It is alleged that as the relationship become strain, the petitioner has preferred a complaint against the respondents 2 and 3 for the offences as stated supra. For quashing the said complaint, the respondents have filed a petition in Crl.O.P.NO.12150 of 2009 before this Court and the same has been dismissed against the second and third respondents by this Court by order dated 09.02.2010. However, the complaint as against the fourth respondent has been quashed. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case in C.C.No.2010 of 2011 and trial has commenced and it appears that the case has reached the stage of examination of D.W.1.

¶26

At that stage, the petitioner herein has filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for inclusion of the fourth respondent herein, against whom, this Court has quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.236 of 2010. However, the said application has been dismissed. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/de-facto complainant is that this Court has quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.236 of 2010 only against the maternal grandfather of the second respondent, i.e. the fourth respondent herein, by imposing certain conditions. Therefore, it is for the trial Court to proceed with the matter as per the decision reported in 1983 AIR 67, 1983 SCR (1) 884 in Municipal Corporation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Delhi vs. Ramkishan Rohtagi and others and hence, he prayed that the revision has to be allowed.

¶29

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the decision relied on by the petitioner as stated supra is on a different circumstances and hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶31

From the perusal of the order, it is seen that the name of the maternal grandfather is shown in the charge sheet, against whom, this Court has quashed the proceedings. Thereafter, trial has commenced and evidences are let in. The petitioner herein has filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead the fourth respondent herein. However, the said petition has not been entertained by the trial Court relying upon the order made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12150 of 2009 dated 09.02.2010 quashing the complaint as against the fourth respondent and the trial Court has dismissed the same.

¶32

Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that on principle, once this Court has quashed the charge sheet, there is no question of any fresh evidence forthcoming against him to include a person as a party. This Court cannot set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate as the appreciation is only left with the learned Judicial Magistrate. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court simply dismissing the petition by saying that the proceedings as against R4 has been quashed by this Court and hence there is no need to implead the fourth respondent as a respondent in C.C.No.236 of 2010. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in 1983 AIR 67, 1983 SCR (1) 884 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ramkishan Rohtagi and others. This Court is not clarifying the preposition of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But, at the same time, since the charge sheet against the fourth respondent has been quashed by this Court and no other document or any material is forthcoming, I am of the view that the order of the trial Court has to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. The trial Court can appreciate the evidence with the available documents independently without being influenced by the orders of this Court and proceed with the matter and dispose the same accordingly.

¶33

However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Tirunelveli, is directed to refer the matter for before the Mediation and Conciliation centre at Tirunelveli, to see as to whether any amicable settlement is possible in this matter and grant sufficient time to enable the parties to settle the matter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by deputing a Mediator. Even after mediation, if the matter is not settled between the parties, if any payment has to be made for the wife/revision petitioner, the same shall be paid to her enable

¶34

¶35

her to purchase machineries for starting a dental clinic. Thereafter, final order shall be passed in this matter. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶38

/True Copy/

¶39

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

1.The Judicial Magistrate, No.I Tirunelveli.

¶42

2.Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli District

¶43

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tuticorin.

¶44

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶45

+2 ccs to Mr.C.Vakeeswaran, Advocate, SR.No.39461 +One cc to M/S.N.SATISH BABU, Advocate, SR.No.39882 RR

¶46

RL/8c - 22/8/2013

¶47

Crl.R.C.(MD) No.485 of 2013

¶48

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sakthi Devi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakthi Devi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Sarojini Vs D. Suba Sundar

Marimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Desavijayan, Vs Reka

S.Ramakrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Sridhar Vs the Inspector of Police

Krishnasamy Vandaiyar Vs the Inspector of Police