U SUVETHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the third accused in C. C. No. 2751 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, filed a petition in Crl. M. P. No. 3752 of 2007 under Section 245 of Cr. P. C. , for discharge from the above charges. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has dismissed the discharge petition and being aggrieved by that the above criminal revision petition has been filed.

(2.) HEARD both. Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent filed a complaint against her husband and three others alleging harassment and cruelty , etc. , and on the basis of such complaint a case was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has also been filed against all the four accused; the third accused, who is petitioner herein is not a relative either to the accused A1, the husband of the second respondent or to the second respondent herein and as such a charge under Section 498-A of IPC could not have been framed against the petitioner; and on that ground the discharge petition was filed, but without considering the said contention, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the following two decisions viz. , 2005 - 2 -L. W. (Crl.) 807 (Ramesh and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and an order in Crl. Appln. No. 388 of 2008 dated 21. 04. 2008 passed by the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench ).

(3.) IN Ramesh's case ( 2005 (2) L. W. Crl. 807) , the Apex Court, in para-6, has observed as under