SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6943

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.Velmurugan, J
M.Nivethitha – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District. – Respondent
Crl.M.P.Nos.4813 of 2025 | Crl.R.C.No.2347 of 2024 | Crl.M.P.No.4817 of 2025 | Crl.R.C.No.2348 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Pince Premkumar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Sugendran, Mr.N.R.Anantha Ramakrishnan

The petitioner is not a necessary party to the pending revision petitions.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petitions were filed under Section 528 of BNSS. Facts of the Case: The petitions sought to implead the petitioner as a second respondent based on a registered FIR for various IPC offences.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is not a necessary party to the revision petitions.

Issues: The main question is whether the petitioner can be impleaded in the revision cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not a necessary party, the petitions could not be granted.

Result: In view of the same, the criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to implead the petitioner as second respondent in Crl.R.C.Nos.2347 and 2348 of

2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Police and perused the materials available on record.

3. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner herein, the first respondent-Police registered a case against the private respondents herein, in Crime No.34 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 506(i), 406, 307 IPC read with 3(1) , 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act . After completion of investigation, the respondent-Police laid a charge sheet and the same was taken on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila) Court, Tiruvallur S.C.No.79 of 2022. Pending case, the private respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.1137 and 1138 of 2024 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., to discharge them from the said case. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tirvallur dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent in Crl.M.P.No.4813 of 2025, has filed a revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.2347 of 2024 and the private respondents/R2 and R3 in Crl.M.P.No.4817 of 2025 has filed the revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.2348 of 2024.

4. Pending revision petitions, the petitioner/de-facto complainantt on whose instance, the first respondent-Police registered the case against the private respondents, has filed these criminal miscellaneous petitions to implead her in the said criminal revision cases. The petitioner herein/de-facto complainant is not a necessary party to the said revision petitions, which are pending before this Court.

5. In view of the same, the criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. 14.03.2025 ( 1/2)

mfa Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

P.VELMURUGAN, J mfa Crl.R.C.No.2347 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.4817 of 2025 in Crl.R.C.No.2348 of 2024

14.03.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top