Madhavi v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 05.08.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.1311 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.Nos.14988 and 14989 of 2025

1. Madhavi

2. Mahalakshmi

3. Saranya

4. Annamalai

5. Vijayan

6. Ruban @ Rubanraj

...Petitioners

Vs.

The State rep. By EOW Tiruvannamalai Tiruvannamalai District

...Respondent

Prayer:

Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 to set aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.1432 of 2024 in C.C.No.505 of 2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai For Petitioners : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page 1 / 4

O R D E R

This Revision has been preferred as against the order dated 20.06.2025 passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.1432 of 2024 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, wherein the petitioners were impleaded as accused.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as A.2 to A.7 in C.C.No.505 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC and Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are family members of the 1st accused and without any specific overt act, they have been implicated as accused. In fact, the petitioners 2 and 3 were studying in college during the alleged period of crime. However, the 6th petitioner, herein was minor at the time of alleged occurrence. Further, even according to P.W.1, there is no specific averments as against the petitioners to attract any charge, thereby pleaded to allow the present Revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the documents placed on record.

Page 2 / 4

5. A perusal of evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 reveals that there are 32 victims so far and all the accused persons have committed theft together to the tune of Rs.72 Lakhs and from the said amount, they have also purchased immovable property. Further, there is specific overt act as against the petitioners to attract offences under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC and Section 4 r/w 76 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and the same was rightly allowed by the trial court and hence this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court.

In view of the above, the present Revision is dismissed. However, the personal appearance of the petitioners 1 to 3 are dispensed before the trial court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 05.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssd To

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai 2.The State rep. By EOW Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras Page 3 / 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

ssd 05.08.2025 Page 4 / 4