1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD) No.501 of 2011 1.Palanivel 2.Lakshmi@Jeyalakshmi ... Petitioner/Complainants Vs Dhanalakshmi ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order in Cr.M.P.No.3472 of 2010 dated 17.05.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilkottai, Dindigul District. For Petitioners : Ms.P.Krishaveni for A.Haja Mohideen O R D E R The petitioners are parents of one Paulpandi, who was working as Cook in Men's a hostel of Adidravidar Welfare in Chattirapatti, Tuticorin District. The wife of the said Paulpandi is the respondent herein. The said Paulpandi died on 20.04.2002. The benefits payable on the death of the Government servant were given to the respondent. Further, she also got appointment as Cook in the abovesaid department on compassionate grounds from the Government. By the intervention of the village elders, the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,200/- per month, as maintenance, to the petitioners, who are in old age and she also had executed an agreement to that effect on 09.03.2007. Since the respondent has not complied with the agreement, the petitioners filed a private complaint before the Court below to take cognizance of offences under Sections 406,471,418 and 420 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, has dismissed the petition considering the ingredients of the abovesaid Sections and concluded that the act of the respondent could not be brought within the purview of the above said provisions. This is the order challenged before the Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners Ms.P.Krishnaveni would contend that when the respondent failed to comply with in accordance with the agreement which she had executed, her acts will come under the abovesaid provisions and that there is no impediment for the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, to take cognizance of the offences aforestated. She would further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 contend that the respondent has obtained her employment on compassionate grounds, only after getting 'no objection' from the petitioners herein. In view of the above said circumstance, it is stated that the respondent has executed this agreement. 3. In the considered view of this Court, the alleged non- compliance of the respondent could not be brought within the purview of the above said sections and no criminal action be initiated against the respondent. If at all the petitioners intend to enforce the agreement, they may seek remedy before the appropriate forum. Sofar as the initiation of criminal action is concerned, this Court is of the view that the order of the said learned Magistrate, Nilakottai, is sustainable, which has concentrated on the ingredients of the considered provisions. There is no ground to set aside the order, which has to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Judicial Magistrate, Nilkottai, Dindigul District. +1cc to Mr.A.Haja Mohideenm Advocate, Sr.No.22634 ssm ssk/01.08.2011 /3c -2p/- Crl.R.C.(MD) No.501 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/