Dismissed

S.Sivakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Sept 2023CRL RC/1466/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a father-in-law challenging the dismissal of his private complaint. The court found the petitioner's complaint was a counter-blast in an ongoing matrimonial dispute and observed that the petitioner failed to follow up on a prior police complaint properly.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the private complaint were confirmed; prayer to register FIR and investigate was not granted.

S.Sivakumar Vs State Rep by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶7

S.Sivakumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 024.

¶9

2.G.K.Narashimhan 3.K.C.R.Hari 4.K.C.R.Siva 5.R.M.Gopinathan 6.K.Ganesh Babu 7.Ramdoss 8.Kalyani 9.Loka @ Lokanayaki 10.J.S.Ramamoorthy ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the orders dated 27.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.8762/2023 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and direct the first respondent police to register FIR and investigate the case.

¶11

Page 1 of 8

¶12

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

¶13

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.L.Kanimozhi For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja, GA (Crl. Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Challenge in this revision is made to the orders dated

¶17

27.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.8762/2023 on the file of the IV Metropolitan

¶18

Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶19

2.The revision petitioner is the complainant in

¶20

Crl.M.P.No.8762/2023. He filed a private complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C

¶21

seeking direction to the first respondent police to register FIR and to investigate the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the complaint preferred by him.

¶22

3.The case of the complainant is that he is the father-in-law of

¶23

one Pavithra and the respondents 2 to 10 are her relatives. According to the complainant, the private respondents 2 to 10 abused him in filthy language and also obtained his signature in a stamp paper at knife point

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶27

threatening him with dire consequences. He thus lodged a complaint with the Inspector Police, R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai and a challan in CSR No.145/2022 was issued. After conducting an enquiry, the police closed CSR No.145/2022. Thereafter, the complainant approached IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai by way of filing a private complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai dismissed the private complaint by observing thus :

¶28

“ 7.On perusal of the complaint, documents and affidavit, it is seen that there is matrimonial dispute between the complainant's son and his wife. They have also filed t h divorce petition before the 4 Additional Family Court, Chennai in HMOP No.1214/2022 and same is pending. Apart from that a criminal case in Cr.No.14/2022 U/s.498A, 420, 406, 506(ii) r/w.34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the DP Act was registered by the Inspector of Police W-26, All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, against the complainant's son, complainant, complainant's wife, Rekha and Deepak. Further the said police has completed the investigation and filed the final report before this court. This

¶29

Page 3 of 8

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶32

court has also taken cognizance of the offences U/s.498A, 420, 406, 506(ii) r/w.34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the DP n d t h Act in C.C.No.835/2023. The 2 to 5 accused have appeared before this Court through their counsel in the said n d t h case. The 2 to 10 respondent are relatives. When the life n d of the daughter of the 2 respondent is in trouble, it is natural that their relatives will come to house of the complainant for a talk or compromise and to settle the dispute between the complainant's son and his wife. The alleged occurrence took place on 07.03.2022. It is not case of n d t h the complainant that the 2 to 10 respondents misused the signed stamp papers by the complainant.

¶33

8.There is no primafacie case made out to n d t h investigate the case against the 2 to 10 respondent for the reason that they are in-laws of the complainant's son and there is the matrimonial dispute between the complainant's son and his wife. Further the complainant has lodged complainant on 07.03.2022 before the police. Thereafter, he did not follow up the complaint. After the Inspector of Police W-26, All Women Police Station has filed the final report on n d t h 28.02.2023 and after the 2 to 5 accused received summon in the said case, the complainant has come forward with this

¶34

Page 4 of 8

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶37

complaint on 10.04.2023. This present complaint appeared to have filed as a counter blast for the case registered against the complainant and his relatives. There is no merit in this complaint.”

¶38

4. Aggrieved over the said orders, this criminal revision case is

¶39

filed.

¶40

Ms.L.Kanimozhi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶41

would contend that though in the complaint , it is specifically stated that the signature of the complainant was obtained in an unfilled stamp paper by the respondents 2 to 10 , the police failed to initiate any action and the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet also dismissed the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner/complainant. She therefore, prayed for directing the first respondent police to register FIR against the respondents 2 to 10 and to investigate the case.

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶45

6. A perusal of the complaint and the orders passed by the

¶46

learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet show s that the second respondent's daughter Pavithra was given in marriage to the complainant's son and that there was a dispute between the couple. The daughter-in-law of the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police W-26, All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai against the complainant's son, complainant, complainant's wife etc., and the same was registered in Crime No.835/2023 for the offences punishable u/s.498A, 420, 406, 506(ii) r/w.34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Act. After conducting investigation, a final report was filed in C.C.No.835/2023 before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶47

7. Though the complainant alleged that the occurrence took

¶48

place on 07.03.2022 and contended that he immediately lodged a police complaint on the very same date he did not take any follow up action. A Perusal of the records shows that the revision petitioner/complainant Page 6 of 8

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶51

after receiving the summons in C.C.No.835/2023, had filed the present complaint on 10.04.2023 against the respondents 2 to 10. Therefore, it seems to be an afterthought and this aspect has also been taken into consideration by the Trial Court Judge. Moreover, the main dispute is only between the couple Pavithra and her husband. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court Judge.

¶52

In the result , this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The orders dated 27.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.8762/2023 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is confirmed.

¶53

15.09.2023

¶54

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

¶55

Page 7 of 8

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶58

R. HEMALATHA, J. mtl

¶59

¶60

1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 024.

¶61

2.The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶62

Crl.R.C.No.1466 of 2023

¶63

15.09.2023

¶64

Page 8 of 8

¶65

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

S.Sivakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilvanathan Vs Thirilogachandar

T. Ramakrishnan Vs v. Ravi

B.Mohammed Haneef Vs S.Tanveer Fathima

M.Soniya Vs P.Rajendran

[email protected] Vs State Rep.by

Varadhan Vs Sub Inspector of Police