L.Dharma @ Dharmalingam vs State Represented By
2023 Latest Caselaw 1186 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1186 Mad
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2023

Madras High Court

L.Dharma @ Dharmalingam vs State Represented By on 31 January, 2023

                                                                          Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1633 of 2023


                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED: 31.01.2023

                                                 CORAM:

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                       Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1633 of 2023
                                                   and
                                  Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.1444 and 1447 of 2023

                L.Dharma @ Dharmalingam,
                                                                                    : Petitioner

                                                    Vs

                1. State represented by
                The Inspector of Police,
                Koodakovil Police Station,
                Madurai District.
                Crime No. 207/2016.

                2. Jothi,
                                                                                : Respondents



                PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying

                this Court to call for the records relating to S.C.No.473 of 2020 pending on

                the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai and quash the

                same.




                1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1633 of 2023


                                      For Petitioner     : Mr.R.L.Dilipan Pandian
                                                           for Mr.D.Rajaboopathy

                                      For R1              : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
                                                            Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                                                       ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the

charge sheet in S.C.No.473 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned

Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.

2.The petitioner is the third accused in S.C.No.473 of 2020, on the file

of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai.

3.The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner is that the petitioner is not a relative of the husband of the deceased

and that therefore, the very filing of the charge sheet for the offence under

Section 304 (B) is not sustainable. He would further submit that the case

stands posted on 15.02.2023 for trial.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the

prosecution has specifically alleged that the petitioner is the relative of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1633 of 2023

first accused.

5.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the

statement of the defacto-complainant that the first accused is the employee of

the petitioner and he also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh reported in (2014) 9

SCC 632, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed as

follows:

'It is well known rule of construction that when the Legislature uses same words in different part of the statute, the presumption is that those words have been used in the same sense, unless displaced by the context. We do not find anything in context to deviate from the general rule of interpretation. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that the word “relative of the husband” in Section 304 B of the IPC would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. When we apply this principle the respondent herein is not related to the husband of the deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court did not err in passing the impugned order. We hasten to add that a person, not a relative of the husband, may not be prosecuted for offence under Section 304B IPC but this does not mean that such a person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence viz. Section 306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute offence other than Section 304B IPC.'

6.It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically

observed that even assuming that section 304(b) IPC is not attracted, does not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1633 of 2023

mean that such a person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence, viz., 306

IPC in case the allegations constitute offence other than Section 304 (b) IPC.

7.In the case on hand, as already pointed out, the trial Court has already

framed the charges and the case stands posted for trial.

8.At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the petitioner may be directed to file an application for

alteration of charges.

9.Recording the submissions made on either side, this criminal original

petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for

alteration of charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C. If such an application is filed,

the trial Court is directed to consider the same by taking note of the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh

reported in (2014) 9 SCC 632 and pass orders in accordance with law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1633 of 2023