Prince Jerald vs Miranda Joans
2021 Latest Caselaw 23256 Mad

                                                                            Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015
                                                                              and M.P.No.1 of 2015



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated : 29.11.2021

                                                       CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015
                                                 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

                     1.Prince Jerald
                     S/o Richard
                     2.Mary Bernard
                     W/o.Richard                                              .. Petitioners
                                                          Vs.

                     Miranda Joans                                            .. Respondent

                     PRAYER : Criminal Revision has been filed under sections 397 read
                     with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment in
                     C.A.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the learned Mahila Court Judge,
                     Uthagamandalam.

                                      For Petitioners :     Mr.S.Ravichandran
                                      For Respondent :      Mr.L.Mouli

                                                       ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging

the order of the Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Uthagamandalam dated

15.04.2015 passed in C.A.No.20 of 2014, in which the impugned order

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

passed in M.C.No.10 of 2011 on 09.07.2014 by the Judicial Magistrate,

Uthagamandalam was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the

Magistrate for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the revision

petitioners to participate in the enquiry.

2. The revision petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law

of the respondent/complainant. On the complaint preferred by the

respondent/complainant under the relevant provisions of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for getting protection order,

residential order and maintenance, the learned Magistrate has passed the

following order:-

“9/ Kothf ,k;kD gFjpahf mDkjpf;fg;gl;L. Vjph;kDjhuh;fs;. kDjhuUf;F ve;j tifapYk; ,ila{W kw;Wk; mr;RWj;jy; bra;af;TlhJ my;yJ kpul;lnth TlhJ vd;W nkw;go rl;lg;gphpt[ 18d; fPH; ghJfhty; Miza[k;. kw;Wk; kDjhuh; vjph;kDjhuh;fspd; tPl;oy; epue;jukhf trpf;f mDkjpf;fg;gl;Lk;. rl;lg;gphpt[ 19d; fPH; ,Ug;gpl Miza[k;. nkYk; Kjy; vjph;kDjhuh; kDjhuUf;F U:/4000/- khje;njhWk; Kjy; thuj;jpy;. ,e;j tHf;F/kD jhf;fy; bra;j njjpapypUe;J nehpilahf $Ptzhk;rj;bjhifahf tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W gphpt[ 20d;

                                  fPH;        gzg;ghpfhu       Miza[k;        gpwg;gpj;J
                                  cj;jutplg;gl;Ls;sJ/”





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015
                                                                                 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

3. The same was challenged by the revision petitioner by way

of filing an Appeal in C.A.No.20 of 2014. The learned lower appellate

Judge was pleased to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate

and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for the purpose of giving

an opportunity to let in evidence on the side of the revision petitioners as

well and dispose of the case afresh.

4. The one and only contention raised by the learned counsel

for the revision petitioners is that the 2nd revision petitioner is the mother-

in-law, who owns a house where the defacto-complainant was residing and

in fact the 2nd revision petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations

made out by the defacto-complainant and that the proceedings can be

maintained only against the 1st revision petitioner.

5. Whatever may be the case, both the revision petitioners

had already been given the opportunity to adduce their evidence before the

Magistrate. In fact, the learned first appellate judge had elaborated in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

judgement about the manner in which the revision petitioners were

dragging on the proceedings. Despite the repeated opportunities given to

them by adjourning the matter from time to time, they did not let in their

side evidence. However, the learned first appellate Court was lenient

enough to offer another opportunity to the revision petitioners by

remanding the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate and permitted the

revision petitioners to let in their evidence.

6. Though the order of the Magistrate has been passed in the

year 2015, the defacto-complainant was not allowed to enjoy the fruits of

the order. By way of filing this revision petition the matter is kept pending

for another 7 years. Since the revision petitioners have been only given

with an opportunity through the order of the Appellate judge, I find no

reason for interference.

7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and

the judgment of the learned first appellate Court stands confirmed.

Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petition is also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam is directed to

comply the direction of the judgment of the lower appellate Court and

dispose the matter at the earliest.

29.11.2021 (R.N.M.J)

Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

rpl

To

1. The Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Uthagamandalam.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam

R.N. MANJULA, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

rpl

Crl.R.C.No.607 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

29.11.2021

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