IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.03.2025 CORAM T HE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P .VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.783 of 2023 Rakesh ... Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Namakkal. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., to convert the acquittal order dated 15.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.438 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court at Namakkal as an honourable acquittal for the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ullasa Velan For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to convert the acquittal order dated 15.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.438 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court at Namakkal as an honourable acquittal for the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-

Police and perused the materials available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2019 against the petitioner/accused and others for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC. The respondent-Police, after completion of investigation, laid a charge sheet against the petitioner herein/A1 and two others before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court at Namakkal. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C.No.438 of 2020. Pending C.C, the petitioner/A1 and A2 and A3 who are parents of the petitioner have filed Criminal Original Petition No.7450 of 2021 before this Court to quash the said case. This Court after hearing the matter, discussed elaborately and quashed the case in C.C.No.438 of 2020, against the parents of the petitioners namely A2 and A3 alone and directed the trial court to complete the trial with regard to A1, who is the petitioner herein, within a period of six months. Accordingly, the petitioner faced the trial.

4. The learned Magistrate, after completion of trial, did not find the petitioner guilty for the said offences and acquitted him from the said charges. The trial court failed to consider/analyse the defence taken by the petitioner, instead of acquitting him from all the charges honorarily, acquitted the petitioner only on the ground of benefit of doubt that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Once the trial court found that the charges were not proved as against the petitioner herein, it ought to have acquitted the petitioner honorarily. The trial court acquitted the petitioner stating that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt which is a stigma to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court to remove that stigma.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial dispute. The alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 26.11.2017. After the date of the alleged occurrence, both the petitioner and the de-facto complainant lived together at Coimbatore, till the petitioner left for London. However, the complaint was given only in the year 2019, after two years from the date of occurrence. The complaint was given by P.W.1 only after the petitioner filed an application on 08.07.2019 before the Family Court at London, for renewal of his minor daughter Adya's passport. After due receipt of the London High Court Summons from the petitioner's (London) Solicitor by E-mail on 08.08.2019 and 13.08.2019, as a counter blast, P.W.1, has lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police on 15.08.2019. F.I.R was registered without conducting a preliminary enquiry and the Investigation Officer on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal recommended for a Look-Out notice to Immigration Department through the Superintendent of Police, Namakkal