Dismissed

Undru Appaji v. State Rep by

Madras HC24 Jun 2022CRL RC/362/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by accused persons challenging the dismissal of their discharge petition. The Court upheld the trial court's order, holding that the facts disclosed strong suspicion warranting trial despite vague allegations.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 03.02.2022 in Cr.M.P.No. 84 of 2019 is upheld and the criminal revision case is dismissed.

Undru Appaji Vs State Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.06.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No. 3772 of 2022

¶7

1.Undru Appaji 2.Nalla Ganapathi 3.Sabathi Srinu 4.Nalla Gayathri 5.Sabbathi Anantha Lakshmi

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Yanam Police Station, Puducherry. [Crime No. 166 of 2012] ... Respondent

¶11

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No. 84 of 2019 in SC.No. 37 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry and set aside the order dated 03.02.2022 and discharge the petitioners by allowing this revision.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. H. Rajasekar For Respondent : Mr. V. Balamurugan Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) Assisted by Mr.Alexander ----

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶14

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/A-3 to A-7 aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2022 passed in Cr.M.P.No. 84 of 2019 in S.C.No. 37 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge at Puducherry, in and by which the discharge petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/accused were implicated in a false case for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 312, 417 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The entire allegations raised by the prosecution may not be attributed against the petitioners who are brothers and sisters of the first accused. Even though the Accused 2 to 7 have filed the petition for discharge and it was dismissed by the Court below, the second accused has not preferred any Revision and this revision is filed by the petitioners/A-3 to A-7. The only allegations against these petitioners are that the de-facto complainant/Victim allegedly approached them and stated that A-1 assured to marry her and with such false promise

¶18

had sexual intercourse with her. When the de-facto complainant asked

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶20

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022

¶21

them to arrange for their marriage, A-2 had allegedly demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to perform their marriage and further stated that unless the de-facto complainant/victim pay the amount, their marriage will not be performed.

¶22

According to the learned counsel, there is no in detail as to when the amount was demanded as dowry, on what date and time. These material particulars were not mentioned in the complaint. As a matter of fact, A2 to A7 and A1 are living separately and therefore, the petitioners case will squarely fall within the purview of discharge. The allegations raised against the petitioners are vague and on mere suspicion, charge sheet has been filed.

¶23

Be that as it may, in this case, strangely, even after the first incident when the de-facto complainant became pregnant, once again A1 had intimacy with her and made her pregnant. The trial Court has noticed

¶24

the fact that by the time the case was registered , a male child was born to the defacto complainant and even the birth certificate was marked before the trial court. Therefore, taking into consideration that the accused

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶26

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022

¶27

refused to perform the marriage of the de-facto complainant and A-1 by demanding dowry, the trial court dismissed the application for discharge. Even as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges against the accused and therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly rejected the discharge petition. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed on the following terms:-

¶28

(i) the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, in Cr.M.P.No. 84 of 2019 in S.C.No. 37 of 2019 is upheld.

¶29

(ii) However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise all the contentions raised by them in the discharge petition during the time of the trial and the same shall be taken into consideration in accordance with law and on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present order for the purpose of deciding the discharge petition.

¶30

24.06.2022

¶31

Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No msm

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶33

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022

¶34

¶35

The III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

¶36

The Inspector of Police, Yanam Police Station, Puducherry.

¶37

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶39

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022

¶40

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶41

msm

¶42

Crl.R.C.No. 362 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No. 3772 of 2022

¶43

24.06.2022

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Undru Appaji v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Undru Appaji v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanagadurai Vs Santhosh

Mohammed Kaleel Vs State Rep by

Dinesh Kumar @ Dheena Vs the Executive Magistrate Cum Deputy Commissioner

Prabanjan Vs State Rep by

Mahimaidoss Vs State Rep by

G.Navaneetha Krishnan Vs C.Vijendra Raja