Strong suspicion based on prosecutorial evidence suffices for framing charges; allegations must be assessed solely from prosecution materials, not defense arguments.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.4323 of 2024 in C.C.No.577 of 2024 dated

02.06.2025.

2.The petitioner/Accused No.2 seeks interference of this Court on the ground that the order suffers from non-application of mind and that the materials available on record do not disclose any prima facie case against her.

Factual Background:-

3.The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.07.2022, one Anandan lodged a complaint alleging that while he erected poles on a disputed land at Velachery Village, accused persons including Mathivanan (A1) and others, criminally trespassed, abused, assaulted and threatened him and his workers. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.255 of 2022 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 341, 447, 427, and 506(ii) IPC. During investigation, the police deleted the names of two accused (Sivabalan and Chandrasekaran), but in their place, added the petitioner, Lakshmi (wife of A1), though her name did not figure in the FIR. In the final report, she was arrayed as A2 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. The petitioner sought discharge, contending that there was no overt act attributed to her even in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court, however, dismissed the discharge petition, holding that prima facie materials exist and that suspicion is sufficient to proceed.

Submissions:-

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner either in the FIR or in witness statements. The learned Trial Court itself recorded that suspicion surrounds the case, yet erroneously dismissed the discharge petition. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner lodged a counter case relating to injuries sustained by her husband/A1 and the very existence of the cross- case is a strong indicator of her presence at the scene and participation in a property-related altercation. It was argued that “strong suspicion founded on materials” is sufficient to frame charges and therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the discharge petition . Further it was argued strongly that strong suspicion founded on materials is sufficient to frame charges and the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the discharge petition. 5.1.Reliance was also placed on:

(i) Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh ¹ (ii)Nathi Lal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh² (iii)Full Bench judgment of Madras High Court in T. Balaji & Anr. v.

1 (2024) 10 SCC 651 2 1990 Supp SCC 145 State³

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

Points for Determination:-

(i)Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C.?

(ii)Whether the materials placed disclose any prima facie case or strong suspicion against the petitioner warranting continuation of trial?

Relevant Legal Provisions:-

7. Section 239 Cr.P.C. (now Section 250 BNSS , 2023):-

If upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and