G.Meganathan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06.03.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.G.Meganathan 2.Maheswari ... Petitioners Vs.

1.State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.Indira ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the entire records with related to the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Cr.M.P.No.3757 of 2022 in unnumbered Crl.A.CNR No.TNTM01-006984-2022, passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai and set aside the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Sasikumar For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Cr.M.P.No.3757 of 2022 in unnumbered C.A. CNR No.TNTM01-006984-2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai.

2.The petitioners, who are facing trial in C.C.No.12 of 2002 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, were acquitted by the trial Court by judgment dated 12.10.2021. Against the acquittal of the petitioners, the de-facto complainant/second respondent filed an appeal before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai with a delay of 74 days. The learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.3757 of 2022 by order dated 11.12.2023 condoned the delay, against which, the present revision has been filed.

2/5

3.The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint in the year 2001 and thereafter, charge sheet filed in the year 2002. The de-facto complainant was only interested to harass the petitioners and other accused. The de-facto complainant is the estranged wife of first petitioner/A1 and A2 to A4 are the relatives of the first petitioner. The trial Court finding that the prosecution not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted the petitioners and other accused. The de-facto complainant said to have married the first petitioner and got separated, later lodged the above case and the petitioners are facing trial in the above case. The de-fact complainant's attitude is only to cause harassment. He further submitted that in this case A3 and A4 passed away during trial.

4.On perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge allowed the 3/5

petition on the affidavit and sworn affidavit filed by the de-facto complainant. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai dated 11.12.2023. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

06.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rsi To 1.The Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi 06.03.2024 5/5