Criminal revision challenging an order permitting further investigation in a domestic violence case. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the accused has no right to challenge such an order and confirming the trial Court's decision to ensure fair investigation.
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.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 25.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7389 of 2024
K.Prakash ... Revision Petitioner/1st accused
Vs.
1.Swathi ... Respondent/petitioner
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.2/2020) ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimaruthur in Cr.M.P.No.962 of 2023 in C.C.No.110 of 2020 dated 16.02.2024 and allow the revision petition. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for R2
1/7
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimaruthur in Cr.M.P.No.962 of 2023 in C.C.No.110 of 2020 dated 16.02.2024.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2013, the marriage between the defacto complainant and accused was solemnized and that accused has left the defacto complainant in her parent's house and that the accused filed the divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No:93 of 2018 before the Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam and that the accused developed illegal intimacy with one Ramya and he started living with said Ramya from September, 2019 to November, 2019 and that on 20-12-2019, the accused, his mother and his brother demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant to settle to Ramya and since the defacto complainant refused to give Rs.10,00,000/- the accused attacked the defacto complainant and asked her to get out of the house. On 21.12.2019, Ramya and her mother came to defacto complainant's house and abused and intimidated her. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged before the respondent police and the case was registered under Sections 147, 498(A), 323, 506(1) of IPC, Section 4 of TNPWH Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024
3.After the investigation, the second respondent filed a final report for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 498(A), 323, 506(i), 494, 294(b), 109 and 354 of IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No.110 of 2020 by the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvidaimaruthur for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 354, 494, 498(A) and 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4.During the pendency of trial, the learned trial Judge allowed Crl.M.P.No.
962 of 2023 dated 16.02.2024 filed by the defacto complainant for further investigation. Aggrieved over the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed.
5.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024
6.The learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that the impugned order was passed upon perusal of the infirmity committed by the investigating agency and also considering the lapse found on the part the investigating agency.
7.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and the impugned order passed by the Court below.
8.The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.110 of 2020 and the petitioner and other accused have committed the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 354, 494, 498(A) and 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the pendency of the trial, the defacto complainant filed a petition to conduct further investigation and the same was allowed considering the interest of justice and to avoid the miscarriage of justice, vide impugned order dated 16.02.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.962 of 2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this revision. The accused has no right to challenge the further investigation order. The learned trial Judge has allowed the petition in order to conduct fair investigation. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding
4/7
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024
of the learned trial Judge in allowing the further investigation on the petition filed by the complainant.
passed in Cr.M.P.No.962 of 2023 in C.C.No.110 of 2020 by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimaruthur, dated 16.02.2024, is hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.07.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No RJR/ sbn
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024
To
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
RJR/ sbn
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.712 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7389 of 2024
25.07.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused has a right to challenge an order permitting further investigation?
Whether the trial Court's order allowing further investigation was justified in the interest of justice?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
K. Prakash
Swathi
Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District
K.K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.K. Ramakrishnan
Parties & counsel
