Madras High Court
S.Lokambal vs The Embal Police Station on 2 April, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 30.01.2025
Pronounced on : 02.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1406 of 2024
S.Lokambal ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant
Vs.
1. The Embal Police Station,
through its Sub Inspector of Police,
Embal, Thirumayam Taluk,
Pudukottai District. ...1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Muthuvel ... 2nd Respondent/Accused
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the judgment,
dated 24.06.2022 in C.C.No.60 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.R.Paranjothi
for M/s.KBS Law Office
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment, dated
24.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.60 of 2021 on the file of the learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam and to set aside the same.
2.The brief facts of the case:
The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant. On the basis of
complaint lodged by the petitioner, the first respondent police registered the case
in Crime No.146 of 2020 U/s.147, 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s. 4 of the
TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the second
respondent/Muthuvel, one Kalimuthu and some others. After completion of
investigation, the first respondent police laid a charge sheet U/s.294(b), 323,
506(2) of IPC and U/s.4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,
2002 against the second respondent alone. The learned District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, has taken on cognizance as C.C.No.60 of
2021 U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s. 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment
of Women Act, 2002 against the second respondent. After furnishing copies
U/s.207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and
U/s. 4 of TN PHW Act, against the second respondent, who denied the same.
Thereafter, when the case was posted for examination of LW.1 to LW.4, the
second respondent pleaded guilty and filed the petition admitting the charges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
On the basis of admission, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Thirumayam passed the impugned judgment convicting the second respondent
U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for
each offence, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
weeks for each charge and left the charge U/s.4 of TN PHW Act as it would not
attract.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner, who is the
defacto complainant, has come forward with this present criminal revision case.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent, and
the learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the records in this
Criminal Revision Case.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has
vehemently argued that the occurrence took place, which was not at private
place, it was paddy land, the accused committed the offence of outraging the
modesty of the defacto complainant at public place. The F.I.R. was registered
U/s.147, 294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and U/s.4 of the TN Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002, against the second respondent and others, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
the first respondent filed the charge sheet against the second respondent alone
U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and under Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statements are very
clear implicating the second respondent and his brother-in-law, but the
Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet against the second respondent alone.
Moreover, though charges were framed U/s.294(b), 323, 506(2) of IPC and
under Section 4 of the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, and
though the second respondent denied the charges, later at the time examination
of witness, the second respondent pleaded guilty of the charges. While being
the acts so, the trial Court has to examine the witnesses and has to find out
whether all the charges proved, but, the trial Court simply considered the
admission of guilty and fined Rs.1,000/- each only for 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of
IPC and further held that the charge U/s.4 of TNPHW Act would not attract.
6. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the
trial Court failed to issue notice to the defacto complainant and failed to
examine the witnesses and also failed to consider that the occurrence took place
at an open place by the second respondent and 15 others. It is settled law that
when several persons assembled, it assumed the character of public place,
thereby, Section 4 of the TNPHW Act would attract. Simply because the guilt is
admitted, lenient view could not be given for the alleged offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
The impugned judgment is not sustainable on the ground that once offences
admitted, conviction should be made on all charges, leaving the charge
U/s. 4 of the TNPHW Act, is violation of natural justice and lenient punishment
of imposing fine alone awarded U/s.249(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC. The second
respondent denied the charges framed against him. Later, at the time of
examination of witnesses, he filed the admission petition, therefore, it is the duty
of the trial Court to examine witnesses and render finding. The trial Court did
not do so, hence, the impugned judgment has to be set aside and prays for order
for trial according to law.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent have objected
the criminal revision case and submitted that the occurrence took place which is
a patta land. The trial Court has the discretion power to award punishment for
the charge. On perusal of material records, the trial Court has clearly found that
Section 4 of the TNPHW Act would not attract as the occurrence took place at
patta land. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case may be dismissed.
8. On hearing rival submission of both sides, it is clear that on the basis of
complaint lodged by the petitioner, originally the first respondent police has
registered a case in Crime No.146 of 2020 U/s.147, 294(b), 323 and 506(2) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
IPC and U/s.4 of the TNPHW Act against two named accused and others.
After investigation, the final report was filed against the second respondent
alone U/s.294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and U/s.4 of the TNPHW Act before
the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam, leaving others. The Investigating
Officer has not issued notice to the defacto complainant for leaving the other
accused, as there are statements U/s.161 of Cr.P.C. available prima facie
implicating other accused in the alleged crime. The final report was taken on
cognizance as C.C.No.60 of 2021 under the same sections against the second
respondent alone. The impugned judgment and trial Court records show that
charges U/s.294(b), 323 and 506(2) of IPC and U/s.4 of the TNPHW Act were
framed against the second respondent, who denied the same at first, but later at
the time of commencing trial, he filed the petition admitting the charges.
Upon his admission, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, found him
guilty and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/s.294, 323, 506(2)
of IPC and further found that the offence U/s.4 of the TNPHW Act would not
attract.
9. At this juncture, the extract of relevant Sections 240, 241, 242, 354 (4)
of the Criminal Procedure Code is useful for adjudication of criminal cases by
the trial Courts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
“240.Framing of charge.
(1) If, upon such consideration, examination,
if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that
there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence triable under this Chapter,
which such Magistrate is competent to try and
which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished
by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against
the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and
explained to the accused, and he shall be asked
whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or
claims to be tried.
241. Conviction on plea of guilty.
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate
shall record the plea and may, in his discretion,
convict him thereon.
242.Evidence for prosecution.
(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not
plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does
not convict the accused under section 241, the
Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of
witnesses.
(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of
the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its
witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any
document or other thing.
(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall
proceed to take all such evidence as may be
produced in support of the prosecution:
Provided that the Magistrate may permit the
cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until
any other witness or witnesses have been examined
or recall any witness for further cross-examination.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
10. In the instant case, on furnishing copies of prosecution records to the
second respondent U/s.207 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court has found prima facie case
and framed charges U/s.294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC and U/s.4 of TNPHW Act.
The second respondent denied the charges after the same were read over and
explained to him. Therefore, the accused has denied the charges at first,
therefore, the trial Court fixed the case for trial as per provisions
U/s.242 of Cr.P.C. and issued summons to L.W.1 to L.W.4. At this juncture, the
second respondent filed the petition admitting the offences and pleaded guilty.
11. As per Indian Penal Code, if an accused found guilty U/s.294(b) of
IPC, the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both and for
U/s.323 of IPC, the accused shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The second respondent also
pleaded guilty for the charge U/s.506(ii) of IPC.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--
Whoever commits the offence of criminal
intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc. - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by
fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or
3*[imprisonment for life], of with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute
unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
12. From the above provision, it is clear that the imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, as the second respondent committed the
offence U/s.506(ii) of IPC. It is also pertinent to note here that charges
U/s.506(ii) of IPC and U/s.4 of TNPHW Act are also framed against the second
respondent. Therefore, after denial of charges at the time of framing, at later
part, the admission of charge by the second respondent could not be taken as a
voluntary one. The trial Court has to examine the ocular and material witnesses
and to consider the testimony of witnesses to corroborate the admission and
understand the context of the crime. While an accused admits the charge, at the
time of giving evidence, it is to be considered as a crucial piece of evidence
against him and the Court may call witnesses to corroborate the particulars of
the crime and establish the context of the admission. In spite of the accused’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
admission, the trial Court would have the discretion to assess the evidence of a
material witness.
13. Here, the trial Court has not called material witnesses and has not
examined them, simply on pleading guilty by the second respondent, the trial
Court imposed only a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence U/s.294(b), 323,
506(ii) of IPC. For the offence U/s.506(ii) of IPC, imprisonment may be given
upto 7 years. If it is so, as per provisions of Sec.354(4) of Cr.P.C. “When the
conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one
year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence,
unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless
the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Code''. The trial Court
has not even awarded imprisonment till the rising of Court U/s.506(ii) of IPC,
that too without assigning any reason, simply fined Rs.1,000/-.
14. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is not fulfilled as per the
contents and language of Section 354 of Cr.P.C. and has not followed the settled
legal principles and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The matter is to
be remitted back for trial according to law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
15. In the result, this Criminal Revisions Case is allowed. The judgment,
dated 24.06.2022 passed in C.C.No.60 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, is set aside and the case is remitted back
to the trial Court for disposal on merits by taking into observations made in this
order, according to law.
02.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
VSD
To
1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Thirumayam.
2.The Embal Police Station,
through its Sub Inspector of Police,
Embal, Thirumayam Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
Crl.R.C(MD)No1406 of 2024
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre - Delivery Order made in
02.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 03:25:45 pm )
