R.Sindhu v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and Crl.M.P.No.15685 of 2025

1. R.Sindhu W/o.K.Jayachandran, No.7, Angamman Koil Street, Redhills, Chennai-600 052.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, W-25, All Women Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

2.K.Jayachandran S/o.Kuppusamy 3.Kuppusamy S/o.Elumalai 4.Kalavathy W/o.Kuppusamy 5.K.Arun Kumar S/o.Kuppusamy, All residing at No.60/2, Sivan Koil Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.21618 of 2024 in CC No.2675/2022 dated 11/06/2025 by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.L.Thulasidass For Respondent(s):

Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate For R1

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision case to set aside the order passed by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. in Crl.M.P.No.21618 of 2024 in CC No.2675/2022, dated 11/06/2025.

2. Before the Trial Court, the defacto complainant filed an application to receive additional digital evidence, namely a pendrive. The said application was objected to by the accused by filing a counter application. On hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge held that the audio conversation and video clippings were perused and found that they were not continuous or cogent, and that they contained only bald allegations and lacked continuity. Therefore, the

Trial Court was not inclined to mark them as exhibits. Consequently, the objection filed by the accused against receiving the additional document was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant has preferred this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents were produced before the Trial Court along with a certificate under Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, and without giving due opportunity to narrate the circumstances and to explain the relevance of the documents, the learned Trial Judge rejected the request for marking the documents, which is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that even in the final report, prior to filing the charge sheet, there was no reference to the alleged pendrive, and that the documents were suddenly produced without cogent particulars. Therefore, according to him, the order of the Trial Court requires no interference.

5. On considering the submissions made on both sides, it is seen that based on the private complaint given by the defacto complainant / wife, the case was taken on file. On a perusal of the affidavit, it is seen that she has narrated

various occasions on which she was ill-treated by the in-laws, abused with unparliamentary words, and her belongings were thrown out. She now seeks to produce a pendrive containing certain conversations, which she claims will establish the ill-treatment. The said conversations are also stated in the typed set of papers, showing that she relies on conversations with the in-laws on various dates.

6. Therefore, only after the conclusion of the trial can the Trial Court give its observations with regard to the conversations found in the pendrive. The petitioner has approached the Court to prove her case, and denial of such opportunity would result in injustice. Admittedly, the pendrive is also accompanied by a certificate under Section 65(b).

7. Accordingly, the findings of the Trial Court rejecting the additional evidence are set aside, and the petitioner is permitted to adduce the said evidence. The veracity of the evidence shall be decided only after completion of the trial. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

8. In the meantime, as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner and the first respondent appeared before this Court. They were directed to explore the possibility of settlement and are referred for mediation at Chennai.

9. The Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai, is directed to issue notice to both the parties and to take up the matter for hearings, not less than three sittings. The appellant and the respondents are directed to appear before the Mediation without fail on 08.12.2025. The Registry is directed to send the papers to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai. After Mediation, to report before this Court about the compromise if any on 19.01.2026.

10. For Reporting compliance, post the case on 20.01.2026. 27-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes rri

To 1.The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, W-25, All Women Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

2.K.Jayachandran S/o.Kuppusamy 3.Kuppusamy S/o.Elumalai 4.Kalavathy W/o.Kuppusamy 5.K.Arun Kumar S/o.Kuppusamy, All residing at No.60/2, Sivan Koil Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

6. The Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Chennai.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri CRL RC No. 1472 of 27-11-2025