PUNITHALAKSHMI vs P.VELRAJA

Court
Madras High Court

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.LINGESWARAN
CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
CNR:{HCMD010346362019}
Punithalakshmi
Door No.70,
Anna Nagar,
Pasumalai, Madurai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. P.Velraja
S/o Pounraj,
36, Devi Nagar,
Thirupparankundram,
Madurai.
2. The State of Tamilnadu represented by,
The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Thirupparankundram.
In Cr.No. 4/2006. ..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,
against the order dated 31.05.2011 in S.C.No.336 of 2008 on the file of
the Additional Sessions (Mahila) Court, Madurai, which acquitted the
accused of the offences charged against him.
For Appellant (s) :M/s R.Karunanidhi
For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Mohamed Kasim for R1
Mr.A.Robinson,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R2
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This petition has been filed by the appellant against the acquittal
order passed by the Additional Sessions (Mahila) Court, Madurai, in
S.C.No.336 of 2008, dated 31.05.2011 in favour of the first respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.11.2004, the first
respondent herein took the de facto complainant to Rameswaram, where
they stayed in a lodge and had sexual intercourse. It is alleged by the
prosecution that the first respondent had promised to marry the defacto
complainant and, on that promise, had sexual intercourse with her.
Thereafter, their relationship continued. Later, the defacto complainant
attempted to marry someone else, and at that time, the first respondent
gave false information to the prospective groom and stopped the
marriage. Therefore, a complaint was lodged, and a case was registered
against the first respondent for the offences punishable under Sections
376, 417 and 312 of the IPC. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Thiruparankundram, Madurai, investigated the case, collected the
evidence, completed the investigation and filed a final report before the
learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai.
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
3. After following due process, the learned Judicial Magistrate
committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. The
case was later made over to the Additional Sessions (Mahila) Court,
Madurai, for trial and the same was taken on file in S.C. No. 336 of 2008.
4. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 17
documents. The defence examined two witnesses and marked two
documents.
5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the first respondent of all the charges.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal has
been filed.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first
respondent had committed rape on the defacto complainant by sedating
her. It was further argued that subsequently, when a marriage was
arranged for the defacto complainant, the first respondent met the
prospective groom, gave false information and stopped the marriage. It
was only thereafter that a complaint was lodged.
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
8. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of
the trial Court on the ground that it had failed to consider the offence of
cheating and the first respondent's failure to marry the appellant.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted
that the first respondent is a doctor and that the appellant/defacto
complainant was a nurse in his hospital. They were in a relationship. The
appellant/defacto complainant was well aware of the fact that the first
respondent was a married man. Knowing fully well that he was married,
the appellant continued her relationship with the first respondent and
became pregnant twice.
10. The learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that she
had undergone abortions twice. With the consent of his first wife, the first
respondent had married the appellant/defacto complainant on 20.09.2004
itself. To prove the same, the first respondent examined DW.1, his own
wife, and DW.2, the priest who had conducted the marriage between the
first respondent and the appellant. During the cross-examination of the
appellant herein, the marriage receipt and the first page of a bank
passbook were also marked.
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
11. The appellant had admitted those two documents without any
protest. Ex.D1 shows that the marriage between the first respondent and
the appellant took place at Madurai, on 20.09.2004. It was only thereafter
that the first respondent consummated the marriage. They were in a
sexual relationship. The appellant herself admitted that she had opened a
bank account in her name, in which she had shown the first respondent as
her nominee in the capacity of her husband. Thus, it was only after
marrying the first respondent that they lived together and had sexual
intercourse with consent. At a later point of time, it was the defacto
complainant who wanted to end the relationship and marry a third party.
It was during this time that the first respondent intervened and created
confusion. He had even filed a petition before the Family Court at
Madurai for restitution of conjugal rights. All these documents and facts
go to show that both parties were in a mutual relationship. Later, the
relationship turned sour, which resulted in the lodging of a complaint
alleging rape, cheating and miscarriage of an offence punishable under
Sections 376, 417 and 312 of the IPC.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a catena of cases, has condemned
the practice of complainants lodging false cases of rape when a
relationship turns sour. This is a classic example of such a case.
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered view that the trial Court rightly concluded that the
relationship between the parties was consensual and that the sexual
relationship between them did not amount to rape. There is absolutely no
evidence to convict the first respondent. Therefore, the trial Court has
rightly acquitted the first respondent. Hence, there is no reason to
interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
14. Accordingly, the acquittal order passed by the Additional
Sessions (Mahila) Court, Madurai, in S.C.No.336 of 2008 dated
31.05.2011, is hereby confirmed and this Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed.
02-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
DSS
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
To
1. The Additional Sessions (Mahila) Court,
Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Thirupparankundram.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
Copy To :
Section Officer ( VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )

CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
D.LINGESWARAN, J.
DSS
CRL A(MD) No. 285 of 2019
02-11-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 05:54:06 pm )