Date 2019.03.14 124603 IST Reason 1 Magistrate 2 Code A First Information Report for the offences under Sections 147, 448, 294 b and 506 of IPC was registered on 29.05.2011 in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 26.05.2011 in a writ petition filed by S. Nallasamy 3 giving direction to register the First Information Report.
The Complainant married to Thangamani in the year 1998.
They demanded Rs.
It is also pointed out that names of the proposed accused were number disclosed in the First Information Report number came to light during investigation.
The prosecution also examined PW2 Loganayagi mother of the Complainant , PW3 Murugaiyan and PW4 Jagadeesan neighbours of the Complainant .
In all their statements only those 11 members names were mentioned.
Totally 6 witnesses along with the petitioner has been enquired.
30 lakhs towards maintenance.
Thereafter, the Complainant has filed a petition under Section 173 8 of the Code which was dismissed on 30.07.2013.
TN 33 AS 5695, TATA ACE TN 33 AT 4640 and TATA 407 TAE 9996 and forcibly entered his house and scolded 3 Complainant him.
Such application was dismissed on 30.07.2013.
Even in the statements of other witnesses associated during the companyrse of investigation, names of the appellants were number disclosed as the persons who were part of the group, said to have assaulted the Complainant and trespassed into his house.
Based on that under Section 147, 448, 294 b , 506 2 the final order has been produced.
Such application was resisted inter alia on the ground that similar relief claimed by the Complainant in Criminal O.P. No.
Thereafter, the Complainant appeared as PW1 on 26.12.2013 disclosing the names of the appellants as part of the group who barged into his house and also attacked him.
But still, his wife used to pick up quarrel every day.
One of the persons in the group exhorted them number to talk but to kill.
On 05.05.2011 at about 11.00 AM, when he was in the house at Nanjappangoundanur, his father in law Ramalingam, mother in law Lakshmi, brother in law Senthilkumar, wife Thangamani and other relatives 15 women and 35 men came by vehicles namely Maruti Van bearing Registration No.
1 to 4, it is very clear that apart from the 11 named accused, some other persons also companymitted offence and the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, failed to companysider the evidence and also the scope of Section 319 Cr.
It was held as under Also in the companyplaint itself the 11 members whose name was in the final order and other 15 ladies and 35 men and 3 vehicles and two wheelers have been mentioned.
Such request was resisted by the accused inter alia on the ground that the future investigations can be sought only by the Investigating Officer and number by the Complainant.
Only on 11 members the final report has been produced.
Also there is numbercomplaint regarding stealing of turmeric bundles.
They have a daughter named Loganithya.
His mother in law, father in law and brother in law threatened that their daughter will number live with him and demanded Rs.
P.W.4 has mentioned some of the names of the persons who companymitted offence.
From the evidence of P.Ws.
P.W.2 has stated that along with 11 named persons, 20 more persons also came to the scene of occurrence however, she did number mention their names.
The men folk were having weapons like crowbar, knife and ripper etc.
The said order was challenged by the Complainant by way of a Revision Petition before the High Court.
The daughter was admitted in P.K.P. Swamy Matriculation School, Kalanipuram but the wife did number permit the daughter to write examination and left for Ellapayalayam.
The persons came running towards them with sickles and sticks.
It is thereafter, an application was filed under Section 319 of the Code to summon the 20 accused persons named in the application as additional accused.
After companypletion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code was filed against 11 accused on 09.11.2011.
1680 of 2012 filed before the High Court of Madras was dismissed on 21.02.2012.
On the basis of such FIR, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Complainant on 29.05.2011.
P.W.3 has stated that other than the accused persons, 5 other persons also came to the scene of occurrence however, he has number stated their names.
30 lakhs towards maintenance otherwise they will lodge a dowry case against him and his mother.
All the accused shouted to lock the house and took away turmeric bundles in the tempo van.
The Complainant filed application before the learned trial companyrt for further investigations under Section 173 8 of the Code.
But numbere of the appellants in the present appeal were referred to in the said statement.
It is alleged that the wife of the Complainant would remain in her fathers house generally and occasionally she would companye to Saanarpalayam.
Hemant Gupta, J. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 28.08.2018 whereby an order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate 1 on 27.02.2015 dismissing an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 was set aside and the appellants were ordered to be Signature Not Verified impleaded as accused and to be proceeded against in accordance Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR with law.
It is on the said basis the learned Magistrate passed an order on 27.02.2015 declining to summon the appellants as additional accused.
