Dismissed

S.Kaaveyapriya v. Anandha Narayanan

Madras HC3 Jun 2024CRL RC/611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision case, the High Court dismissed the challenge to a lower court order that directed investigation only for IPC 498A. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies regarding other alleged offences before the police or trial court upon charge-sheet filing.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out remedy before the Law Enforcement Agency at charge-sheet filing or before the trial court.

S.Kaaveyapriya Vs Anandha Narayanan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

S.Kaaveyapriya

.... Petitioner

Versus

Anandha Narayanan

¶11

Chandrasekaran

¶12

Permavathi .... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court @ Magisterial Level, Salem, in C.M.P.No.65 of 2022 and prayed to set aside the same in respect of holding that no offence under Section 294(b), 341, 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

¶14

-1-

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramakrishnan

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court @ Magisterial Level, Salem, in C.M.P.No.65 of 2022 and prayed to set aside the same in respect of holding that no offence under Section 294(b), 341, 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the wife and the first respondent is the husband and the second and the third respondents are in-laws and she made a complainant before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem Town, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

¶22

-2-

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

¶25

and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. However, the complaint has not been processed by the Law Enforcing Agency and thereby, the petitioner filed a complaint in C.M.P.No.65 of 2022 under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court @ Magisterial Level, Salem, and the trial Court issued a direction forwarding the complaint to the Law Enforcement Agency only in respect of 498(A) of IPC. However, the trial Court has not ordered for investigation for the offences under Section 406, 294(b), 420 and 341 of IPC. On the sole ground only, the present petition has been filed.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the direction issued by the trial Court, the Law Enforcement Agency registered a complaint in Crime No.17 of 2022 for the offence under Section 498 of IPC and if the charge sheet is filed for the offence, liberty may be given to the petitioner to canvass all those points either before the Law Enforcement Agency at the time of filing the charge sheet or before the trial Court.

¶27

-3-

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondents also accepts the

¶31

submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy either before the Law Enforcement Agency at the time of filing the charge sheet or before the trial Court in manner known to law.

03.06.2024

asi

-4-

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

¶37

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

¶38

¶39

Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court @ Magisterial Level, Salem.

¶40

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem Town.

¶41

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶42

-5-

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

¶45

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

¶46

asi

¶47

Crl.R.C.No.611 of 2022

¶48

03.06.2024

¶49

-6-

¶50

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

S.Kaaveyapriya v. Anandha Narayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kaaveyapriya v. Anandha Narayanan

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

T.R.Imtiyaz @ Deel Imtiyaz Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate and

Pandiyan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

M/S.Baby Emu Farms India P.Ltd Vs State Rep by

Suresh Pillai Vs Navas Meeran

K.Senthilkumar Vs Suganya Devi

Kannan Vs State Rep. by