RADHAMANI Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 15.3.2007 in C.C.No.165 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.3, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1 Radhamani has given a complaint against her husband, the second respondent herein, stating that the marriage between them was solemnised on 6.12.1996 and at that time, 50 sovereigns of jewels had been given and they have lived together happily for three months, and then the second respondent-husband-accused demanded Rs.2 lakhs for going to abroad and in the meanwhile, she gave birth to a female child, and after that, her parents gifted four sovereigns for the child. Subsequently, she went to Sulur along with her husband and residing there and then, the accused got job at Chennai and put up their residence in Chennai and at that time, the second respondent/accused demanded more jewels and amount, and unable to bear the cruelty, the revision petitioner/wife left her matrimonial home after borrowing Rs.200/- from the neighbour and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 before the Police Station. P.W.9 Inspector of Police received the complaint Ex.P-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.16 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 (Part 2) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and prepared printed FIR Ex.P-4. P.W.9 Inspector of Police went to the place and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 in the presence of P.W.6 Subramaniam and P.W.7 Palanisami and drew rough sketch Ex.P-3. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is the father of P.W.1. THE neighbours P.Ws.4 and 5 have been examined and P.W.7 Palanisamy and another witness P.W.8 Agnel Samuel were examined to prove the ill-treatment meted out to the revision petitioner, but P.Ws.7 and 8 turned hostile. P.W.9 Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the second respondent-accused for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the second respondent-husband-accused stated that there is no corroboration between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and they are the interested witnesses. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 1627 (Johar Vs. Mangal Prasad) and submitted that the power of the revisional Court is very limited and it cannot re-appreciate the evidence. He further submitted that Ex.D-1 notice dated 11.11.2003 had been issued by the second respondent-husband and after receipt of the same, she replied on 29.11.2003 and in the meantime, she initiated criminal proceedings, and filed the complaint on 20.11.2003 and hence, the complaint is only an after-thought and prayed for dismissal of Crl.R.C.