Allowed

Marimuthu v. State Rep.by

Madras HC25 Mar 2024CRL MP/5114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petition to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner and ordered his release on bail during the pendency of the criminal revision case, finding no specific overt acts against him in a primarily matrimonial dispute.

What did the court decide?

The substantive sentence of imprisonment is suspended until the disposal of the revision; the petitioner is enlarged on bail on conditions including execution of a bond with sureties and periodic appe

Marimuthu Vs State Rep.by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.03.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶7

Marimuthu, S/o.Devadas ... Petitioner Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.9 of 2014) ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Sections 389(1) the Code of Criminal Procedure, to suspend the sentence passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Kattumannarkoil Cuddalore District on 08.02.2023 in C.C.No.12 of 2015 as confirmed by 2 nd Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram in C.A.No.19 of 2023 by judgment dated 14.09.2023 and enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending of this criminal revision petition.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.I.Javid Akbar For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner was convicted by the learned District Munsif-cum-

¶12

Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil (trial Court) in C.C.No.12 of 2015 vide judgment, dated 08.02.2023. Challenging the same, the preferred an appeal

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 7

¶14

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶15

before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram in

¶16

Crl.A.No.19 of 2023 (lower appellate Court) and the same was dismissed vide

¶17

judgment, dated 14.09.2023. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case and the suspension of sentence.

¶18

2.The conviction and sentence of the trial Court is as follows:

¶19

For offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, the petitioner/A3 and A1 were convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.

¶20

For offence under Section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant/PW1 is the wife of A1 and the petitioner/A3 is the sister's son of A1 and A2 is the mother of A1, who died during trial, charges against her abated. The case projected is that on 02.12.2014, the petitioner along with A1 and A2 had gone to the house of defacto complainant, abused and threatened her. On the complaint (Ex.P1) of PW1, FIR (Ex.P5) in Crime No.9 of 2014 registered for offence under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 352, 506(i) of IPC and

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7

¶23

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶24

Section 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband/A1, mother-in-

¶25

law/A2 and the petitioner/A3. The case projected against the petitioner is that the petitioner subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty. On 25.04.2014, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) against her husband/A1 and C.S.R.No.125 of 2014 assigned. Thereafter, compromise was held between A1 and the defacto complainant. A1 agreed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the defacto complainant, but he failed to do so. On questioning the same, the occurrence dated 02.12.2014 said to have taken place. In this case, PW1 is the defacto complainant and other witnesses are relatives except the official witnesses. The overtact of the petitioner not clearly stated except he is the sister's son of A1, hence, the petitioner has nothing to do with the case and he not at all involved in the matrimonial life of A1 and the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner is in Central Prison, Cuddalore from 23.01.2024 after dismissal of the bail by the lower appellate Court, hence, he prayed for suspension of sentence.

¶26

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that in this case, there are totally nine witnesses (PW1 to PW9) and seven documents (Exs.P1 to P7). PW1 is the defacto complainant,

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 7

¶28

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶29

who lodged the complaint (Ex.P1). PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses.

¶30

PW4 and PW5 are the relatives of the defacto complainant who attended the

¶31

marriage function who stated about the demand of dowry and presentation of jewels and cash to A1. PW6 and PW7 are witnesses for Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4). PW8 is the village head who stated about the defacto complainant was being harassed by A1 and also demand of dowry. PW9 is the Investigating Officer who registered FIR (Ex.P5), prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P4), Rough Sketch (Ex.P6), recorded statement of witnesses, collected documents and filed charge sheet before the trial Court. The trial Court on the evidence and materials available rightly convicted the petitioner/A3 and A1 and the lower appellate Court on independent assessment of evidence and materials, confirmed the trial Court judgment. Hence, he prays for dismissal of suspension of sentence.

¶32

5.Considering the submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner is the son of A1's sister who said to have present along with the other accused at the time of abuse and assault. In this case, there is no specific overtact against the petitioner. It is a matrimonial dispute primarily between A1 and defacto complainant/PW1. Further, the evidence of the defacto complainant/PW1 is contradictory to the other witnesses who stated

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 7

¶34

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶35

about the similar facts as of PW2 and PW3. It is also seen that the sentence of

¶36

the trial Court against the petitioner is only a year and the petitioner is in

¶37

confinement for the past two months i.e., from 23.01.2024.

¶38

6.Considering the period of incarceration and also finding that there is no specific overtact against the petitioner, this Court is inclined the suspend the sentence till the disposal of the criminal revision case.

¶39

Accordingly, t he Substantive Sentence of Imprisonment imposed on

¶40

the petitioner is suspended till the disposal of the revision and he is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on condition that he shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶41

8 .Further, the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on the first

¶42

working day of once in three month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the criminal revision and if he is not able to appear before the Trial Court on that

¶43

day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 7

¶45

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶46

date of his absence as directed by the Trial Court.

¶47

9.Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

¶48

25.03.2024 (½) Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes vv2 To 1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. 2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sethiyathope, Cuddalore District. 4.The Central Prison, Cuddalore. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 7

¶50

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶51

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶52

vv2

¶53

Crl.M.P.No.5114 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.552 of 2024

¶54

25.03.2024 (½)

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7

Marimuthu v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marimuthu 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

L.Kumarappan Vs K.Sujatha

Ravikiran Vs State Rep.by

K.G.Kumarasamy Vs T.N.Murugan

Ranjithraj Vs the State Rep by

K.Jayakumar Vs The State represented by

D. Selvam Vs State Rep.by