Madras High CourtCRL RC/1212/2019dismissed

K.Parasuraman v. State Rep By

2023-06-09Honourable Mr Justice Rmt. Teekaa Raman4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 09.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN K.Parasuraman S/o.Kathavarayan Korathy Village Panruti Taluk Cuddalore District.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.State, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police Pudupettai Police Station Cuddalore District (Cr.No.359/2012) 2.Rathinakumar S/o.Selvakumar 3.Kalaiselvi W/o.Rathinakumar 4.Selvaraj S/o.Duraisamy 5.Mangaiyarkarasi W/o.Selvarasu 2 to 5 are residing at Mariamman Koil Street Korathy Village, Panruti Taluk Cuddalore District ... Respondents 1/4

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of Criminal Proceedure Code against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District in Crl.A.No.74/2015 dated 03.08.2018, confirming the Judgment dated 22.07.2015 in C.C.No.90/2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, Cuddalore District. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.V.J.Priyadarasana (for R1) Government Advocate Mr.S.Kadarkarai (for R2, R3 & R5)

O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District in Crl.A.No.74/2015 dated 03.08.2018, confirming the Judgment dated 22.07.2015 in C.C.No.90/2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

2.The Defacto Complainant is the Petitioner herein. Based upon his complaint in Cr.No.359/2012, the 1st Respondent herein filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.90 of 2015. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, Cuddalore District, acquitted the accused. 2/4

Hence, Petitioner/Defacto Complainant filed an Appeal against the order of acquittal in C.A.No.74 of 2015, before the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and the same was dismissed. Hence the Revision Petition.

3.After going through the orders passed by both the Courts below, I do not find any irregularity or illegality. Hence the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court.

4.Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed. 09.06.2023 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order sai To 1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

3/4

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J, sai 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court Chennai 104 Dated: 09.06.2023 4/4