Madras High Court
N.Arumugam vs State Represented By on 17 October, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024
and Crl.M.P.Nos.14194 & 14197 of 2024
N.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Arani All Women Police Station,
Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.
Crime No.01/20211
2.E.Sudha ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w. 442 of
BNSS to set aside the judgment passed in C.A.No.02 of 2015 dated
22.09.2021 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Arani,
Tiruvannamalai District confirming the order of conviction dated 05.01.2015
passed in C.C.No.239 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court at
Arani and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two months, for the offence punishable
under Section 498(A) IPC.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1720 of 2024
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Thankira
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : M/s.E.Sudha
Party-in-Person
ORDER
The petitioner along with his mother and alleged second wife were
tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Arani in C.C.No.239 of 2015 for the
offence under Sections 498A r/w. 109, 494, 406 r/w. 34 IPC and Sections 4
and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court by judgment dated
05.01.2015 acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 r/w. 34
IPC, Section 494 r/w. 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act
but convicted him under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo
two years rigorous imprisonment to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to
undergo three months simple imprisonment. As regards the other two
accused, both were acquitted from all charges. Aggrieved against the
conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2015 before the
learned Additional District Judge, Arani, Tiruvannamalai District. The
learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 22.09.2021 dismissed the appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recording that in spite of sufficient time granted, appellant's side argument
not advanced, appellant called absent and no representation of the
appellant's side. Against which, the present revision petition is filed.
2.The case projected against the petitioner and the other two accused
before the Trial Court is that the marriage between the petitioner and the
defacto complainant/P.W.1 was held on 24.05.2002 at Chandira Pachaiappa
Mudaliar Marriage Hall, Paiyoorkulam, Arani. During the marriage, 30
sovereigns jewels and customary sridhana articles were presented. Further,
customary presents during occasions were also presented. The defacto
complainant could not get pregnant, it was pointed by her mother-in-law,
she was harassed, abused and ill-treated. The defacto complainant and the
petitioner took treatment at Akash Fertility Hospital wherein it was found
that the defacto complainant was not at fault and the petitioner had some
complications but not willing to accept the same, the harassment continued
and finally, the defacto complainant was chased out of the matrimonial
home. In the meanwhile, the petitioner developed relationship with one
Thamarai/A3 and married her on 29.10.2010 at Adiparasakthi Temple,
Melmaruvathur. Hence complaint lodged and case registered. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, P.W.1 to
P.W.12 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked on the side of the prosecution
and on the side of the defence, Ex.D1 and ex.D2 marked. On conclusion of
trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above. Aggrieved
against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the Sessions Court
dismissed the same.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
defacto complainant deserted the matrimonial home and she was living with
her family. On presumption and assumption, an exaggerated complaint
lodged and the Trial Court finding that there is no entrustment of gold
jewels, no proof for the second marriage and demand of dowry, acquitted the
petitioner and others. With regard to Section 498A IPC, merely on the oral
evidence of P.W.1, her parents and family members, the petitioner was
convicted. The Lower Appellate Court not considered the petitioner's plight
and also the petitioner's submissions that a compromise has been arrived at
between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, in which, the defacto
complainant's father P.W.2 and family members signed. As per the
compromise agreed that on 09.08.2015, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the defacto complainant and another Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid after
withdrawal of the case. This being so, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed
the appeal on technicality. Against which, the present revision is filed.
4.During the proceedings, the petitioner and the defaco
complainant/third respondent appeared before this Court, filed an affidavit
confirming the compromise along with the joint compromise memo. The
respondent police who is present before this Court confirmed the identity of
the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is not
inclined to further pursue the case against the petitioner and she is willing to
compound the offence. She received the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
and gave no objection to compound the offence.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent submitted that on the complaint of the defacto complainant, case
registered by the respondent police, initially C.S.R. assigned and after
enquiry, case registered. On examining the witness and collecting the
documents, charge sheet filed. The defacto complainant, estranged wife of
the petitioner, her parents and relatives were examined to prove the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
harassment. The persons who witnessed the marriage also examined in the
Trial Court. The Trial Court giving reasons had acquitted the petitioner for
all the offences except the offence under Section 498AIPC and acquitted the
petitioner's mother and his alleged second wife from all charges. He further
submitted that against the acquittal, neither the prosecution nor the defacto
complainant preferred any appeal. He would further submit that after the
conviction by the Trial Court, compromise entered between the petitioner
and the defacto complainant along with her family members and the defacto
complainant given an undertaking not to further pursue the complaint and
to withdraw the same. Now, the defacto complainant filed an affidavit and a
joint compromise memo filed which were verified and found to be correct.
He further submitted that in view of the fact that criminal case stemming out
of matrimonial discord and now got resolved, the respondent police has no
objection to compound the offence.
6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,
it is seen that initially on the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto
complainant, case registered against the petitioner and his mother and
alleged second wife. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Section 498A IPC and acquitted the other two accused. During
appeal proceedings, compromise entered upon between the petitioner and
the defacto complainant and now she has no objection to compound the
offence. An affidavit filed by the defacto complainant along with a joint
compromise memo to that effect. This Court enquired the defacto
complainant present before this Court about the memorandum of
compromise and her acceptance to compound the offence. The defacto
complainant confirmed the compromise. Hence, this Court is inclined to
compound the offence and discharge the petitioner from the above case.
7.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.10.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Arani All Women Police Station,
Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Additional District Judge,
Arani, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.The Judicial Magistrate,
Arani.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
