MARIAMMAL Vs. SAKKAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 2696 of 2016 dated 07.02.2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) The petitioner is A2 in the case registered as Crime No.6 of 2018. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has filed a protest petition in Cr.M.P.No.2729 of 2018 against the chargesheet filed in S.T.C.No.76 of 2020. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukalathur allowed the petition and ordered to issue summons to A2 to A4 and permitted the prosecution to file the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Against that order, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

(3.) On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was not available in the place of occurrence. Without issuing notice to the petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order. The evidence of L.W.4, L.W. 5 and L.W.6 clearly reveals that the petitioner was not in the scene of occurrence. L.W.4 to L.W.6 were cited as eye witnesses in the case. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth the merits of his case. Only due to previous enmity, a false case was filed and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.