Madras High Court
N.V.Devi vs The State Represented By Its on 27 October, 2025
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.O.P.No.29110 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27.10.2025
Coram :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.29110 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.No.19737 of 2025
N.V.Devi ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Represented by its,
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch, Thiruvarur.
(Crime No.14 of 2006) ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call
for the records and set aside the order dated 01.08.2025 in Crl.R.P.No.7 of
2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur,
confirming the order dated 31.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.983 of 2023 passed by
the learned District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Needamangalam.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathya Kumar
For Respondent : R.Vinothraja,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
******
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the
order dated 01.08.2025 in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2025 passed by the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:17 pm )
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur, confirming the order dated
31.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.983 of 2023 passed by the learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Needamangalam.
2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is A1, who is facing trial in C.C.No.147 of 2011 for the
offences under Sections 408 of IPC @ 420, 465, 467, 468, 477(A) IPC @
120(b), 406, 408, 465, 468, 471, 477(A), 420 & 34 of IPC. The petitioner
had filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.983 of 2023
seeking discharge. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Needamangalam, without properly appreciating the materials, had dismissed
the petition, vide order dated 31.12.2024, against which, the petitioner had
preferred a revision in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2025 and the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur, without appreciating the available
materials on record, vide order dated 01.08.2025 dismissed the revision
confirming the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate, Needamangalam. Hence, the present petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:17 pm )
3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police and perused the
materials available on record.
4 The petitioner, who is A1, is facing trial in C.C.No.147 of 2011
for the offence under Sections 408 of IPC @ 420, 465, 467, 468, 477(A)
IPC @ 120(b), 406, 408, 465, 468, 471, 477(A), 420 & 34 of IPC. She had
filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge and the learned
Magistrate, finding that there are materials available against the petitioner
for framing charges, had dismissed the same, against which, the petitioner
also preferred revision, which was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is
before this Court.
5 It is well settled that when a revision petition has already been
preferred before the Court of Session under Section 397 Code of Criminal
Procedure and the same has been dismissed, a subsequent petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court challenging the very same order
would, in substance, amount to a second revision, which is specifically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:17 pm )
barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The inherent powers of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to circumvent such a statutory
bar.
6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Madu Limaye vs. State of
Maharastra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Krishnan vs. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC
241 and Rajathi vs. C.Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326, has categorically held
that the inherent powers of High Court cannot be exercised as a substitute
for a second revision. Only in cases where the impugned order results in a
manifest miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of Court, the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised in exceptional circumstances.
7 In the present case, having gone through the materials, no such
exceptional circumstance is made out, warranting interference under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this petition being a second revision in disguise, is
not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
8 At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is a lady aged about 60 years and her presence
before the trial Court may be dispensed with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:17 pm )
9 In view of the above submissions, the presence of the petitioner
before the trial Court is dispensed with except that the petitioner shall
appear before the Magistrate for framing of charges, questioning under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and for judgment and whenever the presence of the
petitioner is required for progress of trial. In the event of the petitioner's non
appearance before the Court, the learned Magistrate shall issue warrant of
arrest.
10 With the above observations and directions, this Criminal
Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed.
27.10.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
cgi
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur.
2. The District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Needamangalam.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch,
Thiruvarur,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:17 pm )
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,
cgi
Crl.O.P.No.29110 of 2025 and
27.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/10/2025 03:56:17 pm )
