Madras High CourtCRL RC/394/2024dismissed

R.Saravana Kumar v. D.Vidhya

2024-07-25Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.07.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and Crl.MP.No.3642 of 2024

1. R.Saravana Kumar

2. R.Shenbagavalli ... Petitioners Vs.

1. D.Vidhya

2. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Harur, Dharmapuri District.

... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order passed in Crl.MP.No.6341 of 2023 in CC.No.33 of 2013 dated 10.01.2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Harur, Dharmapuri District. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) R2

ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed against the order passed in Crl.MP.No.6341 of 2023 in CC.No.33 of 2013 dated 10.01.2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Harur, Dharmapuri District.

2. The petitioners are the accused 1 and 3 in CC.No.33 of 2013 and subsequently, the defacto complainant filed a petition in Crl.MP.No.6341 of 2023, seeking to permit the petitioners to assist the prosecution and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition filed by the defacto complainant is bald one and there is no allegation against the petitioners and the defacto complainant did not give any valid reason for assisting the prosecution. The trial Court failed to consider that wantonly with the intention to keep the false dowry harassment case against the petitioners pending for long time, the family

members of the first respondent did not disclose her whereabouts to the respondent police, the same is clear from the report of the second respondent.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the fact that the first respondent is a defacto complainant and she has every right to assist the prosecution. The petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same. The trial Court has rightly passed an order and this Court does not want to interfere with the same.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 25.07.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

Rli M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rli To 1.Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Harur, Dharmapuri District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate Court at Harur, Dharmapuri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

25.07.2024