BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/10/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM CRL.RC.(MD).No.109 of 2009 Boomaran ... Petitioner Vs 1.Nithya 2.Nagarajan 3.Jeya ... Respondents PRAYER Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram in Crl.M.P.No.906 of 2008, dated 28.01.2009 by allowing this Revision Petition. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Kannan ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Muniyandi for Mr.R.Hariappan :ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram in Crl.M.P.No.906 of 2008,
dated 28.01.2009, in dismissing the complaint for the offence under Sections 193
and 211 Cr.P.C.
2. The lower Court in dismissing the complaint has considered that in the
earlier case, which gave rise to the present case, this petitioner/complainant
was one of the accused, in which, his relative was the main accused and the main
offence against such person was under Section 376 I.P.C. The related charges
were also made against this accused and this petitioner/complainant had suffered
custody for over ten days. In the complaint against, dismissal of which the
revision arises, the complainant had alleged that in the related case, the
complainant, the alleged victim girl as also his relative had deposed contra to
what was stated in the complaint or in their 161 statements, as a result of
which, the accused in that case, which include this petitioner/complainant were
acquitted. In appreciating and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, the
lower Court had considered the fact that it was in a circumstance, where the
main accused in that case viz., Muthukumar as also the alleged victim had since
married and were leading a happily married life that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, which ran contra to what was stated in the complaint and
161 statements, came to be recorded. This petitioner/complainant as also other
accused were represented by the same counsel in the other case and no question
was asked on their behalf that the witnesses were deposing falsely. In such
circumstances, the lower Court has reasoned that no case for prosecution under
Sections 193 and 211 of Cr.P.C., would be made out.
3.In these circumstances, I see no error in reasoning of the lower Court.
Accordingly, the revision shall stand dismissed.
MPK
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ramanathapuram