Lakshmiammal v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.250 of 2016 Lakshmiammal ... Petitioner vs.

1.Inspector of Police, E1, Police Station, Udhagamandalam.

2.Ashokan 3.Bellamoorthy 4.Tailor Gopal 5.Degree Ravi 6.Rajkumar 7.N.Suresh 8.H.D.Gokul 9.Rameshkumar 10.J.K.L.Raju 11.Sukumar 12.Krishnamoorthi 13.Chandran @ Rajasekaran 14.Magarishi 15.B.Krishnamurthy 16.Ramakrishnan 17.Selvakumar 18.Shanthi 19.Sarasu 20.Kiliyaselva 21.Santhosh 22.Senthil 23.Murugaesh 24.Kullakumar 25.Saravanan 26.L.Ravi 27.Aravind 28.K.Mohan'

29.K.Manikandan 30.Jeyakumar 31.Kumar 32.Malini @ Malathi 33.M.B.Meena

34.H.Saraswathi 35.Kumari 36.Rani @ Naravarani 37.Sharmila 38.Maliga 39.C.Saroja 40.B.Manihatty .. Respondents Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam in M.P.No.150 of 2015, in S.C.No.2 of 2013, order dated 30.10.2015.

For Petitioner :M/s.C.Saifullah For Respondent :Mr.K.Madhan for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.side) R2 to 40 :Mr.M.Velmurugan

O R D E R

Petitioner challenges the order of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Udhagamandalam, passed in M.P.No.150 of 2015 in S.C.No.2 of 2013, on 30.10.2015.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner/de facto complainant informs that on the complaint of the petitioner a case was registered in Crime No.2 of 2012 on the file of first respondent for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 448, 436, 307 and Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act 1992. While registering the case, Section 307 of IPC has been included and the charge sheet did not inform the commission of such offence. Petitioner has moved the Court below alleging that the offence under Section 307 of IPC has also to be included. The Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed the petition giving rise to this revision.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in dismissing the petition, the Court below has erroneously observed that the nature of injury which was sustained by the petitioner/defacto complainant was simple in nature and as such offence under Section 307 of IPC would not stand attracted.

4. While, such a view might not be correct as what is required to attract offence under Section 307 of IPC is intent to murder, which intention has to be gathered not only by the

nature of injury, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would not interfere with the order under challenge for the simple reason that Section 216 of Cr.P.C enables the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced should the Court be of the view that a larger or lesser offence is made out.

5. This Criminal Revision is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ub To The Learned Session Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, udhagamandalam.

+2cc to Mr.C.Saifullah, Advocate Sr.63193 +1cc to Mr.M.Velmurugan, Advocate Sr.63721 Crl.R.C.No.250 of 2015 svi[co] srg 09/01/2017