K MURUGANANDAM Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) THE petitioner and the second respondent are the practicing Advocates and the petitioner married the second respondent during 2001. THE second respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste. It seems that the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent broke down and the second respondent made a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station alleging offences under Sections 498A, 506(ii) and 494 IPC r/w Sections 109 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and the same was registered in Crime No.966 of 2002. After investigation a charge sheet was also filed before the Principal District and Sessions Court, designated Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) THIS Court, vide order dated 28.10.2010, passed an order in Crl.O.P.No.22387 of 2010, directing the first respondent to engage an Advocate as desired by the victim to conduct the case pending before the learned Principal and District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C.No.196 of 2003. The para-8 of the said order is extracted here under: