Madras High Court
Sakthivel vs State By Inspector Of Police on 19 April, 2022
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
Sakthivel ... petitioner/sole accused
vs.
State by Inspector of Police,
Taluk Police Station,
Pollachi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 21.12.2021 made
in CMP.No.4636 of 2021 in SC.No.72 of 2021 on the file of the Magalir
Neethimandram(Mahila Court), Coimbatore and to set aside the same by
allowing this criminal revision petition.
For petitioner : Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
ORDER
The present criminal revision has been filed to call for the
records pertaining to the order dated 21.12.2021 made in CMP.No.4636 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
2021 in SC.No.72 of 2021 on the file of the Magalir
Neethimandram(Mahila Court), Coimbatore and to set aside the same by
allowing this criminal revision petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the sole accused in
SC.No.72 of 2021. The respondent police filed final report as against
petitioner, alleging that the petitioner committed an offence punishable
under Sections 302, 201 & 498(A) of IPC. While at the time the said case is
posted for framing charges, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 227
of Cr.P.C. saying that the averments found in the final report does not
disclose prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 302,
201 and 498(A) of IPC and therefore the petitioner is liable to be discharged
from the above said case. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court by
order dated 21.12.2021 passed the impugned order wherein he dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioner saying that there was a prima facie case for
the alleged occurrence. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner
is before this Court with the present criminal revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while at the
time of submitting his case before this Court, restricted his argument in
respect to the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC alone. According to him,
the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from the witnesses, does
not show a prima facie case for the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC
and therefore he may be discharged for the said offence alone.
4. On considering the said submissions with the relevant
records, it is the settled proposition that if the court comes to the conclusion
that commission of the offence is the probable consequence, a case for
framing of charge exists at the stage of framing the charge. In otherwise, the
probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. At the time
of framing a charge, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish
beyond all reasonable doubts that the accusation which they are bringing
against the accused person is bound to be brought whom against him.
Purpose of Section 227 and 229 of code is to ensure that the court should be
satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not frivolous and
that there is some material for proceeding against him. In fact, in a case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
T.V.Sarma Vs. R.Meeriah reported in AIR 1980 AP 219, the Hon'ble Full
Bench of Andhra High Court, in respect of discharge of accused, held as
follows:
7.Discharge of accused – The Sessions Judge is bound
to discharge the accused in the following cases.
(a) where the evidence produced is not sufficient
(b) where there is no legal ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(c ) where no sanction has been obtained
(d) where the prosecution is clearly barred by
limitation; or
(e) where he is precluded from proceeding because of a
prior judgment of High Court
5. Now applying the above referred settled propositions with
the case in hand, here it is a case, admittedly the deceased is the wife of the
petitioner. In respect to the offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. In the
statement given by one Anandaraj who is the father of the deceased, it was
stated that after the marriage, the accused regularly quarrelled with his
daughter and due to the same, his daughter returned to his house and later
after consoling his daughter, she went to the petitioner’s house. Though it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
was stated in the statement as the same is not due to the dowry, in order to
attract 498(A) of IPC, following ingredients would be sufficient
(a) that the victim was a married lady (she
may also be a widow), (b) that she has been subjected
to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband
(c ) that such cruelty consisted of either (1) harassment
of the woman with a view to coerce meeting a demand
for dowry, or (2) a wilful conduct by the husband or the
relative of her husband of such a nature as is likely to
lead the lady to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
to her life, limb or heath; (d) that such injury aforesaid
may be physical or mental
6. Here it is a case, only due to the act committed by the
petitioner, she left the matrimonial home, also it is the stand taken by the
accused that she committed suicide. Therefore, in the present case, the stand
taken by the petitioner is sufficient to accept the case of the prosecution that
before the occurrence, the petitioner committed cruelty to the deceased and
therefore, it would not necessary to discharge the petitioner from the offence
under Section 498(A) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
7. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
19.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
lok
To
1.The learned Judge,
Magalir Neethimandram(Mahila Court),
Coimbatore
2.The Inspector of Police,
Taluk Police Station,
Pollachi
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
Crl.RC.No.364 of 2022
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
