IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.06.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.A.No.787 of 2024

1. A.Suresh

2. A.Annadurai

3. T.Chitra ...Appellants Vs.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi Division, Kallakurichi-606 202.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kachirayapalayam, Kachirayapalayam – 606 207.

3. M.Kavitha ... Respondents Prayer: The Criminal appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No.386 of 2021 in Spl. S.C.No.08/2020, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Case.

For Appellants : Mr.Vai. Shanmugam For Respondents: Mr.G.V.Kasthuri Additional Public Prosecutor RR1 & 2

JUDGMENT

This Criminal appeal has been filed to quash the order passed in https://www.mhc.tn.goCv.irnl/j.uMdisP.No.386 of 2021 in Spl. S.C.No.08/2020, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Case.

2. The Appellants have been implicated for the offence under Sections 498A and 494 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) and 3(1)Z of the SC and ST Act 2015 and the same was taken on file in in Spl.SC.No.8 of 2020, in which, the appellants filed a petition u/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.MP.No.386 of 2021, seeking to discharge them from the charges framed against them, which was dismissed by the trial, vide impugned order dated 23.11.2022. Challenging the same, the appellants has filed the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have implicated not based on the evidence. Though the prosecution witnesses named these appellants, the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., do not reveal any offence. Therefore, the statements are vague and it looks artificial and unbelievable. On consideration of the records and documents submitted by the prosecution, there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against these appellants in this case and hence, the appeal has to be allowed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that based on the complaint lodged by one Kavitha, the respondent police filed charge sheet as against the appellants. The first accused introduced himself as an orphan and he proposed to marry her. They have married with the consent of the parents of Kavitha in the year 2013. Subsequently, the first accused revealed the truth that he is not an orphan and he separated from Kavitha as he belongs to Gongu Vellalar community. Further, the first accused married with one Ponsaranya. When the defacto complainant heard about the marriage, the accused and his family members replied that she cannot be accepted because she belongs to Hindu Adidravida Arunthathiyar Community. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence produced with the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., there are prima facie materials against these appellants and the trial Judge, has considered all the aspects in a proper manner and dismissed the discharge petition filed by the appellants and the said order does not warrant any interference of this Court.

5.On a careful perusal of the charge sheet filed under Section

173 of Cr.P.C. along with other material documents and dismissal order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge would show that there are incriminating materials to proceed against the appellants and other accused. In the above facts and circumstances, at this stage, the trial Court is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry on the material on records.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.At the stage of framing of charge, what the Court has to see is whether the material brought on record would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more is required to be inquired into. Only prima facie case is to be seen, the question whether the charges have been proved or not can be determined only after the evidence is recorded in this case. For framing of charge, the Judge ha