P.Karunavathi v. State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR in CRL A NO. 860 OF 2018 Durai Raj (Died) S/o.Suppa Reddy
1. P.Karunavathi W/o.Late. S.Durairaj, 55/4, Behind bus Stand, Sholinghur, Ranipet District.
Durai Raj (Died) S/o.Suppa Reddy Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police Arakkonam Sub Division, Arakkonam All women Police Station.
Crime No. 12/2007.
2.Sudhakar S/o.Subramani, No. B-3/F-1 Mahalakshmi Apartments, Adambakkam, Chennai -600 088.
3.Subramani S/o.Veerappan 4.Saroja 1/5
W/o.Subramani 5.Suresh Babu S/o.Subramani, Respondents 3-5 are residing at Door No. 22/37A, Thowlath Nagar, Semmandalam, Cuddalore.
6.Gowrisankar S/o.Kaliaperumal, Kumbakonam Road, Kamaraj Nagar, Panruti Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 720 days in filing the Substitution Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.Thangavadhanabalakrishnan For Respondent-1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents-2 to 6 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan
ORDER
This petition is filed to condone the delay of 720 days in filing the Substitution Petition.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is the wife of S.Durairaj, who filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.860 of 2/5
2018 against the acquittal of A1 to A5/respondents 2 to 6 in the appeal. In this case, A2 to A5 were found not guilty for offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. A1 was found not guilty for offence under Sections 498-A and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and A1 alone convicted for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. The said Durairaj is the father of the victim Kalaivani. The said Durairaj passed away on 12.10.2023. The petitioner wife of Late Durairaj and Legal heir of Durairaj as well a victim earlier was not aware about the pendency of the appeal. It came to her knowledge recently. Hence, with a delay of 720 days, the present petition filed.
3.The learned counsel further submitted that already in this case A1 had filed Crl.A.No.657 of 2017 against his conviction under Section 306 of I.P.C., which is pending before this Court. While appreciating the evidence on the appeal of A1, petitioner's contention can also be considered and both the appeals can be disposed together.
4.Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6/A1 to A5, who is also representing A1 in Crl.A.No.657 of 2017 strongly objects to the petitioner's contention submitting that petitioner to wreak 3/5
vengeance, using this criminal case for ulterior motive. A2 to A5 are family members, who are father, mother, brother and sister of A1. In fact, A1's brother and sister married and settled with their respective family. It is nothing but a persecution.
5.Considering the submission made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that already A1 convicted for offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. and A1 had filed an appeal, which is pending. The de-facto complainant/father of the victim filed the above appeal in Crl.A.No.860 of 2018, now he has passed away and the mother of the victim stepping into his shoes. It is an appeal filed by the victim. In view of the same, this Court condones the delay and the petition is ordered.
07.11.2025 (1/2) rsi 4/5
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi in CRL A NO. 860 OF 2018 07.11.2025 (1/2) 5/5