R. Nandhini Vs The State of Tamilnadu

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 B.N.S.S., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.51/2024 in S.C.No.245/2022 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur dated 08.01.2025 to set aside the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manojkumar

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.513 of 2025

¶20

For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶21

For R2 - R6 : Mr.S.Santha Kumar

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur in Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2024 in S.C.No.245 of 2022, dated 08.01.2025, this criminal revision case is filed.

¶24

The petitioner's son committed suicide on 03.09.2021. In this

¶25

regard, the respondent police has filed a criminal case in Crime No.528 of 2021 under Sections 147, 294(b), 306 of IPC. After the final report was filed, the case was taken cognizance in S.C.No.245 of 2022 by the Subordinate Judge, Thuraiyur. While so, the petitioner filed an application under Section 302(i) of Cr.P.C seeking permission of the learned Trial Court to assist the Additional Public Prosecutor in the said case by one Advocate K.Kannan. The learned Trial Judge had dismissed the same recording the fact that the Additional Public Prosecutor is conducting the case diligently and as on the date of filing the aforesaid petition, one witness has also been examined and hence, no indulgence is

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.513 of 2025

¶29

required to the Additional Public Prosecutor and hence, did not find it necessary to allow the said petition.

¶30

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submitted that the deceased had committed suicide exclusively due to the atrocious attitude of the respondent/accused and hence, this is necessary to allow the criminal revision case.

¶31

The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that no new allegations as against the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with respect to his conduct of case has been raised and the learned Trial Court had promptly recorded the fact that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is conducting the case diligently. In view of the same it is not necessary to allow this revision case and pressed for dismissal of the revision case.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) for the 1^st respondent and carefully

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.513 of 2025

¶36

perused the materials available on record.

¶37

It is needless to state that no new grounds have been raised in this revision case for seeking to interfere with the impugned order, dated 08.01.2025 and no new grounds or allegations have been made by the petitioner against the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is conducting the case. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a mother who has lost her son, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall be permitted to file written arguments through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after completion of trial before the learned Trial Court. It is also seen that already P.W.1 was examined on 30.08.2023 and P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.4 were examined on 25.06.2025. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that among the 19 L.Ws, 4 L.Ws have been examined..

¶38

In view of the same, without omitting any of the L.Ws, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.513 of 2025

¶42