-
by Admin
16 February 2026 10:43 AM
An FIR was lodged against respondent no.1 herein on the statement of the appellant herein initially for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 302, 420, r/w 34 I PC. As per the statement and allegations in the FIR, her husband was serving as Assistant Professor a year before. However, thereafter he was unemployed. One Bharathi regularly come to my husband's Xerox shop for Xeroxing. One week ago he said that he will give order copy and saibaba prasadam. My husband felt something irritation and immediately took the water and spit the same, and also he give water to his wife with instruction to spit the content in her mouth.The dying declaration of Vela @ Velayutham - A1 was recorded by the Magistrate in the presence of Doctor who certified that the patient was conscious and able to speak. The High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C has quashed and set aside the entire chargesheet and the criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein-A2.
at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence. An amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered from the house of respondent no.1 herein - A2 at the instance of A2 herself. The High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings qua her in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court has ignored what has emerged during the course of investigation. The High Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal. The appeal is allowed.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. Now the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the case, in accordance with law.
August 24, 2021.
SARANY Versus BHARATHI AND ANOTHER
