Regina Begum vs Mohammad Jameel
2022 Latest Caselaw 7294 Mad

                                                                                       Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                         DATED: 07.04.2022

                                                              CORAM:

                                         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

                                                     Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022
                                                in Crl.App (SR) No.38057 of 2020


                     Regina Begum                                        ... Petitioner/Complainant

                                                                 Vs.

                     Mohammad Jameel                                     ... Respondent/Accused

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, praying to grant special leave to file this criminal
                     appeal before this Court as against the judgment dated 10.11.2020 passed by
                     the Additional Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, in C.C.No.1 of 2019 and to
                     permit the petitioner to file the criminal appeal.


                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.K.M.Subramanian

                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed praying to grant special leave for filing an

appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.2020 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, in C.C.No.1 of 2019.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022

2. The case of the petitioner is that upon the complaint presented by

her, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Nagapattinam

took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 448, 379 and 465

of IPC as against the respondent and after elaborate trial, concluded that the

petitioner/complainant has not proved her case and ultimately, acquitted the

respondent/accused. Challenging the same, the petitioner intended to prefer

an appeal and accordingly, seeking leave of this Court, she has preferred

this Criminal Original Petition.

3. Heard Mr.K.M.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner.

4. The impugned judgment rendered by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Nagapattinam was placed for perusal.

The copy of the depositions given by PW1 to PW6, who are all the

witnesses examined before the trial Court, were also placed before this

Court for consideration.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022

5. Here it is a case, all the witnesses have stated about the occurrence

as during the relevant point of time, the petitioner herein filed a

maintenance application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as against her

husband Sheik Alauddin and the said petition was ordered in her favour.

Thereafter, on 29.02.2016, her husband passed away. Further the reason for

his death has not been known to the petitioner. After the death of the

petitioner's husband, the accused/respondent had stolen away the car

belongs to her husband and sold to some other persons. Further after the

death of the husband of the petitioner, the accused/respondent proclaimed

that he is the foster son of the said Sheik Alauddin and attempted to

complete the final rites of the deceased Sheik Alauddin.

6. Now, the accused/respondent has fabricated false birth certificate

and attempted to get the properties owned by Sheik Alauddin. In this

regard, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Town Haji. Further, the

complaint lodged before the police has also been closed as the dispute

having by the petitioner and the accused is civil in nature.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022

7. Accordingly, the whole case projected by the petitioner is that

during the time of death of petitioner's husband viz., Sheik Alauddin, he is

having number of valuable properties and the same has been stolen away by

the accused/respondent. But the evidence given by the prosecution

witnesses, did not show the nexus between the crime and the accused. In

fact all the evidences let in before the trial Court did not show the overtact

attributed by the respondent/accused.

8. More than that before the trial Court on the side of the petitioner,

27 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P27 and all of them relates to the

relationship between the petitioner and her husband. In otherwise, on the

side of the accused, his birth certificate is marked as D1. Further the

deposits having by the deceased Sheik Alauddin, account note and the

particulars of lockers are marked as Ex.D2 to Ex.D4, respectively. The

learned Magistrate, had correctly held that there is no iota of evidence to

show the accused herein had criminally trespassed into the house of the

petitioner's husband and attempted to forge the document.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022

9. Therefore, in the absence of any specific material as against the

accused/respondent, it would not be necessary to grant special leave for

filing an appeal against the judgment dated 10.11.2020 rendered by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Nagapattinam in

C.C.No.1/2019. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to allow this

petition and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal in Crl.App. S.R.No.38057 of 2020, is rejected.

07.04.2022

ars

To

The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Nagapattinam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022

R.PONGIAPPAN, J.

ars

Crl.O.P.No.7563 of 2022

07.04.2022

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