Krishnaraj v. 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.1087 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.13870 of 2025 Krishnaraj .....

Petitioner Vs 1.State rep by, The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry.

Cr.No.Not known.

2.Varalakshmi .....

Respondents 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 02.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5155 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Puducherry, and set aside the same by allowing the above Crl.R.C. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For R1 : Mr.K.S.Mohandass Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5155 of 2024 by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Puducherry, thereby issued a direction to register the FIR against the accused.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is a possibility of an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the second respondent. Therefore, he wants to refer the matter for mediation.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the accused has committed a very serious offence against the petitioner. It is alleged that he accused had assaulted the victim on her stomach, as a result of which she suffered a miscarriage and the foetus was expelled. Therefore, there are specific allegations to constitute the offence.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the second respondent reveals that the petitioner had assaulted her, thereby causing injuries. Further, the petitioner had also assaulted the family members of the second respondent. Therefore, immediately, the second respondent was taken to the hospital, where it was found that she had suffered a miscarriage, resulting in continuous bleeding. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and other jurisdictional police. However, it was not considered and as such, she filed a petition under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking registration of FIR. Though a direction was issued on 02.04.2025, the Station House Officer, All Women Police Station, Veillianur, Puducherry, has failed to register any FIR till date.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the uncle of the second respondent is working in the very same police station and therefore, the second respondent had made influence to secure registration of the FIR.

7. If the Station House Officer, All Women Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry is the relative of the second respondent, the FIR ought to have been registered without compelling the second respondent to run from pillar to post. That part, there are specific allegations against the petitioner and as such, the learned Magistrate rightly directed to register the FIR.

8. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5155 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Puducherry. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stand dismissed. However, the first respondent is directed to register the FIR forthwith and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.07.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Puducherry.

2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Villianur, Puducherry.

3.The Public Prosecutor (Pondy), High Court of Madras, Chennai.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp Crl.R.C.No.1087 of 2025 15.07.2025