1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.724 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Chitra Devi 2.Chinnakumar 3.Abinaya ... Petitioners Vs. Murugeswari ... Respondent Prayer: Revision petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 26.07.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.628 of 2011 in M.C.No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramasamy ORDER The Criminal Revision petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 26.07.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.628 of 2011 in M.C.No.9 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3.It is seen that M.C.No.9 of 2008 was filed by the respondent herein against her husband one Aravindhan and the petitioners herein. The learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 07.09.2009 directed the the said Aravindhan to provide accommodation in a residential house and also directed to return 15 sovereigns of gold jewels within 30 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved by which, appeal was preferred in C.A.Nos.94 and 97 of 2009. 4.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.1, Tuticorin by order dated 12.08.2010 confirmed the order passed in M.C.No.9 of 2008 dated 07.09.2009 and dismissed the appeal. In C.A.No.97 of 2009 and directed the said Aravindhan to return back 25 sovereigns of gold jewels instead of 15 sovereigns as ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Pursuant to the order, Crl.M.P.No.628 of 2010 was filed by the respondent herein before the court below against her husband Aravindhan and the petitioners 1 to 3 herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner it is seen that the petitioners herein were arrayed only formal parties since the relief sought for was only against her husband the said Aravindhan. The petitioners 1 and 3 / R2 and R4 could not appear before the court below and they filed a petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. though, the 2nd petitioner was present. The court below dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners 1 and 3 filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. passed an order whereby R2 and R4 were set ex parte. Aggrieved by which, the present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred. 6.It is clear from the order passed by the Court below that the petitioners 1 to 3 were arrayed only as formal parties. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners the first petitioner is the mother-in-law and the third petitioner is the sister- in-law of the respondent/de facto complainant. Since they were only formal parties, the court below could not have dismissed the petition filed by them under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and set them exparte. 7.In the aforesaid circumstances, to meet ends of justice, I find it just and reasonable to allow the Criminal Revision petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision petition is allowed and the order dated 26.07.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.628 of 2011 in M.C.No.9 of 2008 so far as it relates to R2 and R4 before the court below is concerned is set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose of the matter so far as it relates to Aravindhan, the first respondent therein is concerned in accordance with law. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to M/s.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Advocate,SR.No.40925 nbj rl/4c – 13.12.2011 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.724 of 2011 22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/