RAJA ALIAS SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER: Challenging and impugning the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Gobichettipalayam, in Crl.M.P.No,4644 of 2006 in C.C.No,34 of 2006, these criminal revision cases are focussed.

(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this case would run thus:- The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 354 and 506(i) IPC as against the accused. When the matter has been pending before the Magistrate concerned, the de-facto complainant herself filed a petition for including Sections 498 and 509 of IPC. But the said petition was dismissed. Charges were framed by the Magistrate for the offences under Sections 354 and 506(i) IPC. Thereafter Additional Public Prosecutor concerned filed Crl.M.P.No,4644 of 2006 for framing additional charge under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and it was allowed. Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the order of the Court below in Crl.M.P.No,4644 of 2006, the petitioners/accused have filed these revision petitions, raising various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:- The learned Magistrate, after categorically arriving at the conclusion that no offences under Sections 498 and 509 of IPC had been made, he was not justified in veering round and taking a plea quite antithetical to what he committed himself in black and white in the form of the earlier order dated 10.6.2006, in passing the present order dated 26.10.2006, as though the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of (Harassment of Women) Act has been made out.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners, by inviting the attention of this Court to the various portions of the records available, would set forth and put forth his argument to the effect that the accused persons should not be kept under tenterhooks by going on suggesting or changing the penal Sections as against them, even though the law might permit alteration of charge on sound grounds and not on flimsy grounds. After the Magistrate having exercised his discretion not to add any more offences in the charge, which were framed under Section 354 and 506(i) of IPC, he was not justified in passing the impugned order.