Madras High Court
Ramarajan vs Minor.Krishnan on 2 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.1569 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2021
Ramarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Minor.Krishnan
Rep. by Guardian/Next Friend/Grandmother
Virammal .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in Crl.R.P.No.23 of 2019 by order
dated 29.09.2020 by allowing the order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore, Vellore District in
Crl.MP.No.5053 of 2019 in M.C.No.2 of 2019 dated 30.07.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the Court below allowing the revision petition filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
respondent and setting aside the order passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.5053 of 2019,
dated 30.07.2019.
2.The respondent minor represented by his grand mother
filed an application seeking for maintenance against the petitioner
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. At the time of filing the petition, the
grand mother representing the minor boy had wrongly mentioned
the name of her daughter as Sathya instead of Loganayagi.
Subsequently, an application came to be filed to amend and carry
out the corrections in the petition. This application came to be
dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.III, Vellore.
Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the Principal
Sessions Judge, Vellore and the revision petition was allowed by the
Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been
filed before this Court.
3.Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted that the Court below did not possess any
power or jurisdiction to amend the petition filed under Section 125
Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the Court below
could not have imported the concept under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
into a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel
further submitted that the amendment that is sought to be carried
out in the petition is not a mere correction and it fundamentally
changes the very character of the petition since, the grand mother
of the respondent had specifically taken a plea that the minor boy
was born to one Sathya and subsequently she has now changed the
version as if the boy was born to the other daughter named
Loganayagi. The learned counsel concluded his arguments by
submitting that the Court below went wrong in reversing the well
considered order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
4.This Court has carefully considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
materials available on record.
5.A reading of the petition filed by the grand mother of the
minor boy shows that she has two daughters and one son and the
name of one of the daughter was Sathya and the name of another
daughter was Loganayagi. Earlier there was a criminal case given
against the petitioner by the said Loganayagi which was registered
in Crime No.18 of 2010 for an offence of rape. Ultimately, the
matter ended up in trial in S.C.No.27 of 2012 before the Fast Track
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Mahila Court (Sessions Judge), Vellore. During the pendency of the
proceedings, since the petitioner questioned the parentage of the
minor boy, a DNA test was also ordered and it was found that the
minor boy is the son of the petitioner. However, the case ultimately
ended in acquittal since, the trial Court found that the offence of
rape has not been made out. Subsequently, the said Loganayagi
went out of her house and minor boy was taken care by his grand
mother. Since she was not able to maintain, a maintenance petition
came to be filed before the Court below against the petitioner.
6.In two of the places in the petition, the respondent had
mentioned the name of the daughter as Sathya instead of
Loganayagi. This was sought to be corrected by filing an application.
7.In the considered view of this Court, the petition filed
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is more quasi civil in nature. This Court
has held that an application can be maintained for correcting the
errors that have crept in to the petition filed under Section 125
Cr.P.C. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court
in the case of Chinnappaiyan vs. Chinnathayee reported in 2010
2 MLJ Crl 695.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8.In the considered view of this Court, there is no dispute
with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the father of the minor
boy and the same is clear from the DNA report that was marked
during the pendency of the criminal trial. Merely because the name
of the mother of the minor boy was wrongly mentioned, that cannot
be a ground for the petitioner to resist the maintenance petition.
The revisional Court was perfectly right in interfering with the order
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and this Court does not
find any ground to interfere with the same.
9.In the result, this criminal original petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
02.02.2021
Index :Yes
Internet:Yes
ssr
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Vellore, Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Vellore, Vellore District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.1569 of 2021
and Crl.M.P.No.912 of 2021
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
