Sakthibala Alias Sathiyaraj v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Nov 2025CRL RC/1074/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.13777 of 2025; Justice T.V.Thamilselvi; decided 06.11.2025; Sakthibala (a) Sathiyaraj v. Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station (Cr.No.1120 of 2020) and Asalambal; setting aside Magistrate's order dated 25.11.2024 in R.No.502/2021 in C.C.No.153 of 2021 implicating petitioner as A2; police report dated 10.05.2021 removing petitioner's name; L.W.1 statement re tractor dispute between families; petition under Section 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S Act; statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C; advocate T. Saravanan for petitioner; Government Advocate A.Gopinath for State.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.11.2024 in R.No.502/2021 in C.C.No.153 of 2021 set aside; Criminal Revision Case allowed; connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.13777 of 2025) closed. ¶¶26

Sakthibala Alias Sathiyaraj Vs The Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.11.2025 CORAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.13777 of 2025

¶3

Sakthibala (a) Sathiyaraj ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, Perambalur (Cr.No.1120 of 2020)

¶6

Asalambal ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : This petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S Act to call for the records pertaining to call for the orders pertaining to the orders passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Veppanthattai ( FAC), Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur dated 25.11.2024 in R.No.502/2021 in C.C.No.153 of 2021 and set aside the same.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T. Saravanan

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate

¶10

1/6

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to to set aside the order passed passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Veppanthattai ( FAS), Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur dated 25.11.2024 in R.No.502/2021 in C.C.No.153 of 2021

¶14

2. The facts of the case is that there was previous enmity between the husband of the complainant/second respondent and the petitioner's family. Due to which the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Thereafter, the respondent conducted investigation and submitted a report in R.No.502 of 2021 on 10.05.2021 to remove the petitioner's name from the charge sheet. Accordingly cognizance were taken against other 3 persons as A1 to A3 and summons were sent to them. The sum and substance of the case is that after a lapse of 4 years the learned Judge has passed an order on 25.11.2024 in C.C.No.153 of 2021, wherein, the investigation report in R.No.502 of 2021 was closed and the petitioner was implicated as A2 in the case. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition for the above said relief.

¶15

2/6

¶16

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

¶17

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate failed to note that the second respondent in her complaint has stated that four persons assaulted her, whereas in the accident register in Perambalur G.H, she has stated that only one person has assaulter her. He further submits that the police has conducted a detailed investigation and only thereafter they have acquitted the petitioner from the case. Hence, prays to allow this petition.

¶18

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submits that after conducting the detailed investigation only they have submitted a report in R.No.502 of 2021 on 10.05.2021 to remove the petitioner's name from the charge sheet.

¶19

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

6. On a perusal of the impugned order it reveals that the learned Judge had made an observation that the statement filed u/s 161 of Cr.P.C statement of L.W.1 it is seen that prima facie is made out against the petitioner/2 nd accused, whereas the respondent police submits that they have conducted a detail investigation and

¶21

3/6

¶22

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

¶23

only thereafter an order was passed in R.No.502 of 2021 on 10.05.2021 to remove

¶24

the petitioner's name from the charge sheet.

¶25

7. This Court has gone through statement of L.W.1, wherein second respondent has deposed that there was dispute between the the second respondent family and the petitioner's family with regard to running of the tractor. Hence, considering the said statement, the learned Judge ought not to have implicated the petitioner in the case.

¶26

8. In view of the above facts, the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Veppanthattai ( FAS), Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur on 25.11.2024 in R.No.502/2021 in C.C.No.153 of 2021 is set aside. Accordingly this Criminal Revision case stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

06.11.2025

¶28

smn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶29

¶30

4/6

¶31

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

¶32