IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and Crl.MP.No.20574 of 2025

1. Velmurugan S/o.Dhandapani

2. Dhandapani S/o.Dharmalingam, Both are residing at

13/134, DVB Illam, Palappampatti, Udumalaipettai.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Udumalaipettai, Tiruppur District.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, prays to set aside the order dated 07.08.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.3733/2025 in CC.No.27/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalaipettai by allowing the present Criminal Revision Petition.

For Petitioner(s): M.Vijay For Respondent(s): Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Ms.D.E.Ani Sree Sangavi for Defacto complainant

ORDER

The petitioners have filed this Revision, to set aside the order dated

07.08.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.3733/2025 in CC.No.27/2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalaipettai.

2. Before the Trial Court, the petitioners filed an application under Section 250(i) and 274 of BNSS, Crl.M.P.No.3733 of 2024, seeking discharge from the proceedings in C.C. No. 27 of 2024, stating that they were falsely implicated in the case. The case was registered based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/wife of 1^st petitioner against the petitioners who are husband and father-in-law respectively for offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, along with a Dowry harassment case. The case was taken on file, on C.C.No.27 of 2024, cognizance was taken, and charges were framed. After the framing of charges, the petitioners filed a discharge application contending that they had not attacked the defacto complainant as alleged, and that no such occurrence had taken place. They further submitted that the defacto complainant had already received the entire 80 sovereigns of jewellery and had withdrawn her divorce petition. According to them, there is no prima facie material to implicate them, and therefore they sought discharge from the proceedings.

3. On hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge concluded that the allegations relating to dowry harassment and the alleged occurrence could be decided only after a full fledged trial, and not at the stage of a discharge application. The learned Trial Judge held that prima facie materials were still available against the petitioners and consequently dismissed the application.

Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider the fact that 80 sovereigns of jewellery was already in the custody of the defacto complainant, which is also evident from the FIR allegations. Furthermore, according to the petitioners, there is no material produced by the defacto complainant to substantiate the allegation of dowry demand, and therefore the learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed the discharge application instead of dismissing it. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that the parties have been separated for the last three years. She stated that on multiple occasions they had separated, and throughout such period, she and her daughter were looked after by her parents, not by the petitioners. She further submitted that the 1^st petitioner failed to maintain them and had harassed and assaulted her, which compelled her to lodge the complaint. She also contended that the jewellery and money are in the custody of the first petitioner, who had continuously demanded dowry to expand his business. When this Court suggested settlement, the first petitioner only stated that he could provide some amount at the time of the minor daughter’s marriage, but he did not give any assurance at this stage.

6. Admittedly, the 1^st petitioner is working as a part