Lakshmi vs Meenakshi
DATED : 14.08.2023
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.RC.(MD).No.873 of 2023
Introduction:
The presented case involves a Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner, Lakshmi, seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the Additional Mahila Court in Madurai. The petitioner had filed a discharge petition in relation to Case No. 285 of 2021, which was dismissed by the trial court. The case revolves around the maintainability of a discharge petition and the possibility of filing a quash petition.
Background:
Lakshmi, the petitioner, is the accused in Case No. 285 of 2021 being heard in the Additional Mahila Court in Madurai. She had previously filed a discharge petition in the trial court, seeking to be relieved from the charges. However, her discharge petition was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by this decision, Lakshmi filed a Criminal Revision Case (Crl.RC.(MD).No.873 of 2023) before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, represented by Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan.
Contentions and Court Proceedings:
Lakshmi’s counsel, Mr. Subash Babhu, the Senior Counsel, argued that the discharge petition filed by Lakshmi before the trial court was rejected. However, during the course of the proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel acknowledged that a discharge petition may not be maintainable. He referred to certain legal precedents, including the judgment in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338, and Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005 SCC Crl 245), to support his argument on the issue of maintainability of a discharge petition under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
During the hearing, Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan directed Lakshmi’s counsel to address the court on the possibility of filing a quash petition, considering the relevant legal precedents. The Senior Counsel cited paragraph No. 15 of the Adalat Prasad case, which highlighted that while a review of an order was not contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code, the remedy might lie in invoking Section 482 of the Code for quashing proceedings.
Court’s Decision:
In light of the Senior Counsel’s submission, Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan granted permission to Lakshmi to file a quash petition to challenge the proceedings of Case No. 285 of 2021 before the Additional Mahila Court in Madurai. The court’s decision was based on the acknowledgment that a discharge petition might not be the appropriate course of action, but the possibility of seeking relief through a quash petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was open.
Conclusion:
The case analysis demonstrates that the court’s decision in Crl.RC.(MD).No.873 of 2023 was centred on the issue of maintainability of a discharge petition and the subsequent permission granted to the petitioner to file a quash petition. The court considered legal precedents, acknowledged the constraints of the Cr.P.C., and provided an alternative legal avenue for the petitioner to challenge the proceedings. This case underscores the importance of legal strategy and the nuances involved in pursuing the most effective remedy in the context of criminal proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
