Madras High Court
Sivasankara Velu vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By on 25 February, 2025
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 22.01.2025
Pronounced on : 25.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.13290 of 2024
1.Sivasankara Velu
2.Sivagama Sundari
3.Mageshwari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Rajapalayam North Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.686 of 2019)
2. Selvaraj ... Respondents
(R2 is impleaded as per order of the Court, dated
09.01.2025 in Crl.M.P(MD)No.367 of 2025 in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024)
PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 r/w
442 of BNSS, to admit this revision on file and to call for the records
from the lower Court in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2024 in S.C.No.235 of 2022,
dated 16.11.2024 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court,
Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District and duly set aside the same and
consequently discharge the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
1/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mohankumar
for Mr.K.Prabhu
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.V.Vivek Bharathi
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated
16.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2024 in S.C.No.235 of 2022 on
the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
District and to set aside the same and consequently, discharge the
petitioners/accused.
2.The brief facts of the case:
The revision petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.235 of
2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Srivilliputhur. Initially, there were four accused in this case. It was
alleged that the deceased Ashwini was daughter of the defacto
complainant/2nd respondent and she was given marriage with one
Arunachalam, son of Accused No.1, on 14.11.2013 and out of wedlock
they have two children named Ananya and Siva Arumugavel. It is further
alleged that after few years the husband of the deceased, who was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
2/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024working in Chennai, left his job and came to his native place and since
then the deceased was illtreated by the in-laws. So, the deceased left her
matrimonial home in the year 2019 and was in depression and she
committed suicide on 21.12.2019 along with the suicide note. Based on
the complaint along suicide note given by the second respondent, the first
respondent registered a case in Crime No.686 of 2019 U/s.174(3) of
Cr.P.C. and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against the husband
of the deceased and the petitioners (as Accused Nos.1 to 4) U/s.306 of
IPC and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.24 of 2021 by the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam. Then the criminal proceedings
against the husband of the deceased/Accused No.1 was quashed by this
Court as per the order passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.19952 of 2021, dated
22.03.2022 and the case has been proceeded against the petitioners.
After furnishing copies to the petitioners/accused the case was committed
by the committal Court and the case is now pending as S.C.No.235 of
2022 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur. During
the pendency of further proceedings, the petitioners have filed the
petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2024 in
S.C.No.235 of 2022 to discharge them from the case. The respondent
police filed a counter objecting the discharge petition. On hearing both
sides and after perusing the material records, the learned Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
3/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur found that there was a prima
facie case against the petitioners and dismissed the petition for discharge
by order dated 16.11.2024.
3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioners has come
forward with this present Criminal Revision Case.
4. The defacto complainant has also been impleaded as second
respondent on his petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first
respondent and also learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused
the records in this Criminal Revision Case.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has
argued at length and also submitted written arguments. The learned
counsel mainly argued that the alleged charge is abetment to suicide
U/s.306 of IPC against the petitioners. There is no offence of any nature
made out against the petitioners. There is no material and there is no
sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. The case of abetment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
4/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
has to be dealt with Section 107 of IPC also. To make out the alleged
charge of abetment there should be instigation, participation in the
commission of offence, or aiding on the part of the accused to force the
deceased to commit suicide. But, in this case, there is no such ingredient
available against the petitioners. In the absence of such materials, the
alleged offence U/s.306 of IPC is not attracted against the petitioners.
The deceased committed suicide in her parental home after 5 months of
leaving her matrimonial home as she was in depression. The DRO in his
report has clearly stated that there is no dowry harassment on the
petitioners’ side. Moreover, the deceased had run a happy married life
with her husband and gave birth to two children who were aged about 5
years and 2 years at the time of occurrence. Even as per the alleged
suicide note there is no mentioning of any instigation or abetment on the
part of the petitioners and it would not make out any ingredients to attract
an offence U/s.306 of IPC. The suicide note has not been sent to the
Handwriting Expert. The children of the deceased are still living with the
petitioners. The third petitioner is the sister-in-law and she is living with
her family at Chennai and she had no role in the personal life of the
deceased and her husband (Arunachalam). The 161 Cr.P.C. statements
are all of the interested witnesses of the defacto complainant and no
independent witness was examined by the prosecution. The entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
5/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
proceeding was quashed against the husband of the deceased, who was
originally arrayed as Accused No.1, by this Court. Therefore, the
petitioners ought to have been discharged. The trial Court has not
considered all these aspects, dismissed the petition for discharge and
failed to hold that the alleged charge is groundless. Therefore, this
criminal revision case may be allowed.
7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on
the following citations:
(1) AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 (Sanju @
Sanjay Singh Sengar /v/ State of M.P.)
(2) (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 665
(Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra /v/ State
of U.P.)
(3) Order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.
(MD) No.12664 of 2020, dated 20.10.2023 (S.Saranya
& Others) /v/ State and Anr.)
(4) 2024 SAR (Cri) 1032 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of “Shanmugasekar /v/ The State of
Tamil Nadu)
(5) 2024 SAR (Cri) 1027 of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of “Rohini Sudarshan Gangude /v/
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.)https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
6/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the first respondent has objected the criminal revision case.
The prosecuting agency has laid charge sheet only after thorough
investigation. All the petitioners’ contention raised in this criminal
revision can be decided only after full fledged trial. There are prima
facie materials available to frame charge. The trial Court has properly
discussed in its order that though the petitioners along with original
Accused No.1 filed the quash petition, the petitioners have withdrawn the
petition and from the suicide note the names of the petitioners are
specifically mentioned. So, elaborate trial is essential to decide the
issues. At the stage of framing charge, only a prima facie case is to be
looked. The trial Court correctly held that there is a prima facie case
made out against the petitioners and passed the impugned order. There
cannot be said to be any material error or illegality in the impugned
order. Hence, this criminal revision may be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto
complainant argued the same contention of the first respondent.
He would further submit that the brother of the second petitioner stated
in his Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement that there was dowry harassment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
7/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
against the petitioners. Moreover, the suicide note was sent to hand
writing expert opinion and the report confirms the handwriting of the
deceased. He would further submit that though the petitioners have filed
the petition for quash before this Court, later they have withdrawn the
same. He would further argued that this Court while quashing the case
against the husband of the deceased, directed the trial Court to proceed
with the case as against the petitioners and to complete the proceedings
within six months. At the stage of framing charge, the trial Court has to
go into the probative value of materials and it is not expected to go deep
into the matter, the trial Court needs to consider whether there is a prima
facie material available to frame the charge. In this case, sufficient prima
facie materials are available. Therefore, there is no ground for
discharging the petitioners from the case. The criminal revision case may
be dismissed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
1452-1453 of 2022, dated 05.09.2022.
10. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the petitioners arrayed as
accused for the alleged offences U/s.306 of IPC. On perusal of material
records, it is clear that the deceased is the daughter-in-law of petitioners
1 and 2 and the deceased got married with the son of petitioners 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
8/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
Though the spouses lead a happy matrimonial life in the beginning and
have two children, later the husband left his job and returned back to his
native place and it is alleged thereafter, the deceased was subjected to
harassment at the instance of petitioners and she left her matrimonial
home and that she committed suicide in her parental home after
5 months. The prosecution alleged that the deceased wrote suicide note.
On perusal of the suicide note it has been mentioned as,
“vd; khkdhh; ngrpa thh;j;ijfisa[k; khkpahh;
bra;j bfhLikfisa[k; ehj;jdhh; ,iHj;j
Jnuhfq;fisa[k; vd;dhy; $Puzpf;f Koatpy;iy.
kd cisr;rYf;F cs;shfp ehd; gLk; ntjidia
cq;fsplk; gfpu kdk; tutpy;iy.. FHe;ijfis tpl;L
gphpa kdkpy;yhky; tpil bgWfpnwd;/ ..vd; Kotpw;F
fhuzkhdth;fs; vd; ehj;jdhh; knf];thp> vd; khkpahh;
rptfhkp Re;jhp> vd; khkdhh; rptrq;funtY…..”
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners along with the husband
of the deceased, who originally arrayed as A1, have moved this court in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.19952 of 2021 to quash the proceedings. However, the
petitioners have withdrawn their quash petition. This court has
elaborately dealt with the petition considering the provision of Sections
306 and 107 of IPC and rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
quashed the proceedings as against the husband of the deceased alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
9/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
This Court has passed the order in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19952 of 2021 as
follows:
“16.Therefore, in view of the above, the
proceedings in P.R.C.No.24 of 2021 is quashed, the
Criminal Original petition is allowed for the first
accused alone. The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Rajapalayam, is directed to complete the
proceedings in respect of other petitioners within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of copy
of this order…”
12. Therefore, the petitioners were further proceeded with and
after committal proceedings, the case is now pending for framing
charges. As per the ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the second
respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing
of charge, the probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the
Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the matter
would not warrant a conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
rendered settled propositions in catena of decisions in respect of
discharge petitions filed U/s.227 of Cr.P.C., It is settled that the Judge
while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C., in sessions cases, has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
10/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material
placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused
which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in
framing the charge. While examining the discharge application filed
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., it is expected from the trial Judge to
exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has
been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not
supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record.
13. In this criminal revision, though the petitioners raised several
grounds, they are triable issues in the matter. On perusal of the statements
U/s.161 of Cr.P.C., the very own brother of Accused No.2 gave statement
that he heard that the deceased was subject to dowry harassment by the
accused from the date of marriage. Of course, though it would be
hearsay, as argued by the petitioners’ counsel, at this stage it would not
ignored. Moreover, on perusal of Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of DRO,
who stated that
“…brd;idapypUe;J rptfphpf;F Fobgah;e;J
rptfphpapy; Tl;L FLk;gkhf trpj;j nghJ
jk;gjpapdh; ,UtUk; gpur;ridapd;wp trpj;j
nghjpYk;> gpw FLk;g cWg;gpdh;fshy; FLk;g
gpur;ridfs; vGe;J jk;gjpapdh; kd thH;f;ifiahttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
11/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024ghjpj;J re;njhrkpd;wp thH;e;J
te;Js;sdh; …..ghjpf;fg;gl;l ,g;bgz; kd
cisr;rypnyna je;ij tPl;oy; trpj;J
te;Js;shh;..”The above facts could be taken as prima facie material. Moreover, the
hearsay evidence can be accepted or not would be decided only after
fullfledged trial based on other material evidences.
14. In this case, the suicide note was sent to expert opinion and it
is opined that the handwritten was made by the deceased. In the suicide
note, the names of the petitioners are specifically mentioned and also the
deceased stated about untold and undigested harassment alleged against
the petitioners. Though the case was originally registered as against four
accused, admittedly, the alleged offences as against Accused No.1 has
been quashed by this Court. The quash proceedings of coaccused will
not be a ground for discharge the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners
have also filed the quash petition, but they withdrew their quash petition
for the reason best known to them.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a reported case in 2022 Live
Law (SC) 741 (State by DSP /v/ Soundirarasu) discussed the scope of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
12/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024revisional power against the order passed in discharge petition following
the Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) and held in
respect of scope of exercise of revisonal power at the stage of framing of
charge, which is as under:-
“3. …..The revision power under the Code
of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a
routine and casual manner. While exercising
such powers the High Court has no authority to
appreciate the evidence in the manner as the
trial and the appellate courts are required to do.
Revisional powers could be exercised only when
it is shown that there is a legal bar against the
continuance of the criminal proceedings or the
framing of charge or the facts as stated in the
first information report even if they are taken at
the face value and accepted in their entirety do
not constitute the offence for which the accused
has been charged.”
16. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court
while allowing the quash petition against the deceased’s husband,
directed to continue the proceedings as against the petitioners. There is
no appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said order of this Court,
however, they have participated the proceedings and received the copies
of material records and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
13/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
Court for trial. So, there is no legal bar against the continuance of the
proceedings or framing of charge as against the petitioners.
17. The rulings relied on by the petitioners’ counsel are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Because, in this
case, the suicide note specifically made allegations against the petitioners
mentioning the names of accused and also the Sec.161 Statement of
brother of the Accused No.2 is available. They could be taken as a prima
facie evidence until final adjudication upon them after full-fledged trial.
Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity upon the order of the
trial Court and does not warrant any interference. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to allow this criminal revision case.
18. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
VSD
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
14/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
To
1.The Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Rajapalayam North Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.686 of 2019)
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
15/16
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre – Delivery Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.1307 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.13290 of 2024
25.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 12:25:02 pm )
16/16
[ad_1]
Source link