Madras High Court
S.Nirosha vs The State Represented By on 26 August, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2017
S.Nirosha ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Walajabath Police Station, Walajabath,
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397
and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order in C.M.P.No.1579 of 2016, on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram, dated
12.07.2016.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order
passed in CMP.No.1579 of 2016 in Crime No. 116 of 2016, by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram, dated 12.07.2016,
whereby, the petition filed by the defacto complainant for re-investigation
was dismissed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2017
2.Heard the learned Government Advocate and perused the
materials placed on record.
3.On the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated
29.02.2016, the Investigation Officer had registered a case in Crime
No.116 of 2016, against the accused for the offence under Section
294(b), 506(i) of IPC and investigated the case and filed the final report
stating as “mistake of facts” and the referred charge sheet. Thereafter, an
application has been filed by the defacto complainant alleging that the
case was not properly investigated and notice of R.C.S was not given.
4.After perusal of the statement of witnesses including defacto
complainant, the Investigation Officer has found that on account of
previous enmity, against the accused, defacto complainant has preferred a
false complaint and the neighbouring villages, all the witnesses have
uniformly stated that the accused have never abused or threatened the
defaco complainant with dire consequences.
5.Further, the records reveals that the defacto complainant has filed
objection to RCS. Though, a plea was raised before the Trial Court that
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2017
no notice before referred charge sheet was filed, from the records by a
letter dated 23.05.2016 along with copy of the final report, RCS notice
was duly served upon the defacto complainant by affixed residence. In the
presence of the witness, she had refused to receive the referred charge
sheet.
6.Hence, the reason assigned by the Trial Court that the petitioner
has not disposed any fresh facts in this petition and taking note of the
statement of general public, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly
rejected the petition and hence, this Criminal Revision Case devoid of
merits.
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed and
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in
(i)2009 (9) SCC 129 – [Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and
Others]
(ii)2015 (8) SCC 774 – [Chandra Babu alias Moses Vs. State through
inspector of Police and others], are taken note of.
26.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2017
dua
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
dua
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Walajabath Police Station,
Walajabath, Kancheepuram District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2017
26.08.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
