In a revision under Section 397 CrPC, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting the defense counsel's discharge plea in a criminal trial involving assault and harassment allegations.
Revision petition dismissed; discharge not granted; connected miscellaneous petitions also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.R.C(MD)No.744 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.9155 and 9157 of 2022
1.Vignesh
: Petitioner/Petitioner/Accused No.4
Vs.
State rep., by The Inspector of Police, Satur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.328 of 2018)
: Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2020 in C.C.No.197 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur and set aside the same and discharge the petitioner in C.C.No.197 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
For Respondents : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate
2
ORDER
The present criminal revision case is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2020 in CC.No. 197 of 2019.
2.The petitioner is the fourth accused in CC.No.197 of 2019.
3.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
The defacto complainant and the accused Ramamoorthi(A1) are cousins. On 26.12.2018 at about 10.00 pm., when the defacto complainant was sleeping in her house, the accused Ramamoorthi(A1), Krishnasamy(A2), Seethalakshmi(A3) and Vignesh(A4) came down to her house and abused her in filthy language and also assaulted her causing simple injuries to her. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the SubInspector of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station, registered FIR in Crime No.328 of 2018 against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,2002. After completing investigation, he filed a final report against all the accused including the petitioner(A4) for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
aforesaid offences before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur. The petitioner(A4) filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.19 of 2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate to discharge him from all the offences under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, on 07.07.2022. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision petition is filed.
4.Heard Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manikandan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
5.The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, there is no overt act as against the petitioner(A4) and therefore, the final report filed by the Inspector of Police against the present petitioner cannot be sustained. However, a bare perusal of the final report clearly shows that the petitioner(A4) also trespassed into the house of the victim (defacto complainant) and assaulted her causing simple injuries to her. A perusal of 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement of Dr.A.Senthilganesh shows that the victim stated before him that she was assaulted by four known persons on 26.12.2018. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
08.08.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Rmk
To
5
R. HEMALATHA, J.,
Rmk
Crl.R.C(MD)No.744 of 2022
08.08.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's dismissal of the discharge petition can be interfered with in revision.
Whether there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner to sustain the final report.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Vignesh
State
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
