Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2279 (MAD)

C. Angammal @ Jaya v. A. Balasubramaniam & Others

2007-07-21

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2007
Judgment :- By way of this revision petition, the revision petitioner challenges the order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2005 in S.C.No.14 of 2002 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. The petitioner had filed Crl.O.P.No.3459 of 2004 before this Court seeking for a direction from this Court for an order of re-investigation in this case under Section 173(8) of C r.P.C. While disposing of the said Crl.O.P.No.3459 of 2004 , this Court had given an opportunity to the revision petitioner herein to file necessary application before the trial Court under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the revision petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2005 in S.C.No.14 of 2002 on 21. 2004 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for a direction to the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the case. The learned trial Judge, after going through the records has passed a detailed order in Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2005 in S.C.No.14 of 2002 giving reasons for the dismissal of the said petition filed by the revision petitioner herein. 2. Even in the complaint Ex P1 preferred by her, the specific overact attributed by her is that at the time of the commission of the offence, A2 and A3 caught hold of her and A1 had poured kerosene and set fire to her. But in the petition, the petitioner would contend that one Chakkubai was omitted to be included as an accused and only on that ground the petitioner sought for re-investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 3. A perusal of ExP1 complaint will go to show that there is absolutely no allegation made against the said Chakkubai. Admittedly, the said Chakkubai is the sister-in-law of the complainant. Since there is absolutely no allegation against the said Chakkubai in the complaint Ex P1 preferred by this revision petitioner, the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that there no ground to order reinvestigation in this matter and consequently, dismissed the petition. 4. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the well considered order of the learned trial Judge in Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2005 in S.C.No.14 of 2002. Further it is seen that P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined before the trial Court and trial is nearing completion. 5. In fine, the revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed . Further it is seen that P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined before the trial Court and trial is nearing completion. 5. In fine, the revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed . The trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial in S.C.No.14 of 2002 and to dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.4235 of 2005 is also dismissed.