IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 26.11.2025 Coram:

The Honourable Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.R.C.No.2042 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.19253 & 19256 of 2025

1.Mr.R.Kumaran

2.Mr.E.Rangasamy ...Petitioners Versus State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, W-21, All Women Police Station, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ...Respondent This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023 praying to (a) Call for the records in C.C.No.3294 of 2014 and C.A.No.49 of

2024 (b) Set aside the conviction and sentence dated 29.12.2023 in C.C.No.3294 of 2014, passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet at Chennai as confirmed in Crl.A.No.49 of 2024 dated

24.06.2025 passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

(c) Acquit the Petitioners of all charges under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Moorthi For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioners seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 29.12.2023 in C.C.No.3294 of 2014 passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet at Chennai as confirmed in Judgment dated 24.06.2025 in Crl.A.No.49 of 2024 passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and acquit them of all charges under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that 1^st Petitioner married one Saradha (de facto complainant) on 25.03.2007 at Vallakottai Murugan Temple in the presence of their family members. After their marriage, 1^st Petitioner demanded money from the de facto complainant, to construct a house and he also received Rs.50,000/- from de facto complainant, for which, de facto complainant had pledged her 10 sovereigns of gold jewels. Subsequently, 1^st Petitioner got married another woman. When the de facto complainant questioned about the second marriage of 1^st Petitioner, 2^nd Petitioner (father-in-law of de facto complainant) and Mrs.R.Govindammal (mother-in-law of de facto complainant) had beaten the de facto complainant. Further, 1^st Petitioner had committed cruelty on de facto complainant and driven away the de facto complainant from his house. Therefore, de facto complainant had lodged a complaint to the Respondent Police in this regard. Based on the complaint given by de facto complainant, Respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.02/2014 against the 1^st Petitioner/Accused No.1 (husband of de facto complainant), 2^nd Petitioner/Accused No.2 (father-in-law of de facto complainant) and Mrs.R.Govindammal/Accused No.3 (mother-in-law of de facto complainant) under Sections 498A, 506(i) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Women Harassment Act. Then, the Investigating Officer started to investigate the case. After the completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had altered the charge framed against the accused from Sections 498A, 506(i) of IPC r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Women Harassment Act to Section 498A & 406 of IPC. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer had filed the Final Report before the Trial Court which was taken on file in C.C.No.3294 of 2014.

3. Before the Trial Court, on the side of prosecution, de facto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and 4 other persons were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.5 and 3 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. On the side of accused, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked as exhibit.

4. During the pendency of trial, Mrs.R.Govindammal/Accused No.3 (mother-in-law of de facto complainant) had died and therefore, charge against Accused No.3 was abated.

5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 are found guilty for commission of offence under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 29.12.2023 in C.C.No.3294 of 2014, convicted the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and sentenced them as follows:

Aggrieved by the