Dipin Vijayakrishnan v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.13781 of 2025
1. Dipin Vijayakrishnan
2. Vijayakrishnan
3. Prameela ....
Petitioners Vs The State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, W-6, All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 010.
(Crime No.06 of 2014) ....
Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Mahila Court (Metropolitan Magistrate), Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2024 in C.C.No.20 of 2017 and set aside the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Anilsandeep For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2024 in C.C.No.20 of 2017 by the Additional Mahila Court (Metropolitan Magistrate), Egmore, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking their discharge.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3, who are facing the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of IPC. On perusal of the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C from the defacto complainant reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioners warranting them to face trial for the aforesaid offences.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, after filing a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint. That apart, she had also filed a domestic violence case. Subsequently, the defacto complainant also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the present complaint is only afterthought and all the allegations are bald and vague. However, the defacto complainant did not know the date of on which the jewels are taken by the second and third petitioners.
5. It is seen from the records that there are specific averments to attract the charges as against the petitioners. All the grounds raised by petitioners can be considered by the trial Court during the trial. At this stage, there is absolutely no ground to discharge the petitioners from the charges.
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.647 of 2024 in C.C.No.20 of 2017 by the Additional Mahila Court
(Metropolitan Magistrate), Egmore, Chennai,. The personal appearance of the second and third petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate applications. However, the second and third petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment.
7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15.07.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp
To 1.The Additional Mahila Court (Metropolitan Magistrate), Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police, W-6, All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram, Chennai - 600 010.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp Crl.R.C.No.1076 of 2025 15.07.2025