1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD) No.795 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 P.Balasubramanian : Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs. The State rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhoor, Virudhunagar District. : Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, against the order, dated 29.08.2011 passed in C.C.No.22 of 2011 of the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhoor. For petitioner : Mr.Selvaraj For respondent : Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, Govt. Advocate ORDER Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. Challenging the order, dated 29.08.2011 made in C.C.No.22 of 2011 of the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhoor, this Criminal Revision has been preferred. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A4 in the case pending before the Court below. As per the charge sheet, the case was registered against the petitioner / A4 and other accused under Sections 294 (b), 498 (A), 406 r/w 109 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, based on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant, who is the wife of A1, brother of the petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without proper service of summons, warrant was issued against the petitioner by the Court below. However, the petitioner has not filed any petition before the Court below, seeking an order to recall the warrant if any issued against him, but he has simply filed a copy application, seeking a copy of the warrant and copy of the summon, dated 29.08.2011 and 27.07.2011 respectively and the copy application https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 was returned by the Court below that the same was affixed at the door of the petitioner's residence. 5. Learned Government Advocate submits that there was proper service of summons to the petitioner / accused. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to the learned Government Advocate, the revision itself is not legally sustainable. 6. It is seen that the petitioner / A4 has not raised any legal grievance against the impugned return. Had there been any warrant issued against the petitioner / A4, he could have filed a petition to recall the warrant before the Court below. Without filing any petition to recall the warrant, based on the return, he cannot maintain the revision and seek an order of stay. Filing this petition and seeking the relief, without any legal grievance and without filing any petition to recall the warrant, if any would be construed only as an abuse of process of court, accordingly, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this criminal revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate petition before the Court below to recall the warrant, if any issued against him and pending. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II Srivilliputhoor. 2. -Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhoor. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhoor, Virudhunagar District. 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD).No.795 of 2011 12.10.2011 tsvn NSV/29.10.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/