CRL OP(MD)/22701/2026 of Santhalakshmi Vs Alangaram on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the appellant in Crl.A.No.23 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar, challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2026, whereby the petition filed by her under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., seeking permission to receive additional documents, came to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:

(a) The petitioner lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent police against her husband and her in-laws, which came to be registered in Crime No. 12 of 2008 for the alleged offences under Sections 498(A), 506(i) and 325 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(b) On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 08.03.2017, acquitted all the accused, primarily on the ground that neither the petitioner nor her husband had established that they had been legally divorced

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:39:07 pm )

from their respective first marriages. The trial Court further found that the witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution as regards the injuries said to have been sustained by the defacto complainant, and accordingly acquitted all the accused of the offence under Section 325 of IPC as well.

(c) Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.23 of 2022 before the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar. After the appeal had remained pending for nearly four years, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.26 of 2026 under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., seeking to receive the following documents as additional evidence:

(i) her marriage invitation;

(ii) the birth certificate of her daughter;

(iii) the FIR and charge sheet in the cases relating to the year 2000;

(iv) the FIR in Crime No.112 of 2011; and

(v) a copy of the petition in H.C.P.No.329 of 2011.

(d) In the said petition, it was averred that the above documents are vital and that, owing to a mistake, they were not marked before the trial Court. The learned Appellate Judge, however, dismissed the petition by the impugned order, holding that the documents pertain to a period anterior to the marriage, that they were very much available with the petitioner at the time of trial before the trial Court, and that she had not assigned any sufficient reason for seeking to

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:39:07 pm )

produce them at the appellate stage. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and that, though the documents had been handed over to the prosecutor, they were, by mistake, not placed on record before the trial Court. It was contended that the documents would establish that the petitioner had been continuously subjected to harassment at the hands of the respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel further submitted that, though some of the documents relate to a period prior to the marriage, they would go to show that the respondents had harassed the first wife also. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the learned Appellate Judge was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of Cr.P.C.

6. A perusal of the petition shows that the petitioner seeks to bring on record her marriage invitation and the birth certificate of her daughter, neither of which is disputed by the other side. The trial Court acquitted the accused primarily by doubting the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:39:07 pm )

first accused, and further found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under Section 325 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. When the acquittal rests on the very validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the first accused, the mere production of a marriage invitation or the birth certificate of the child would serve no useful purpose.

7. Insofar as the other two documents are concerned, they relate to criminal cases of a period five years prior to the marriage of the petitioner and have no relevance whatsoever to the dispute that arose after the marriage. Significantly, the petitioner has not even whispered in her affidavit as to how these documents are relevant.

8. That apart, the appeal has been pending since the year 2022, whereas the present interlocutory application came to be filed only in the year 2026, and the delay has not been properly explained. Under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court must arrive at a finding that the additional evidence sought to be adduced is necessary to secure the ends of justice. It is well settled that the power under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to fill up the lacuna in the case of a party, and an appellant who has already availed the opportunities before the trial Court cannot be afforded a second chance to prove her case.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:39:07 pm )

9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge in dismissing the petition filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed, as devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No msa To

1. The Additional District Judge,

2. The Inspector of Police Virudhunagar All Women Police Station Virudhunagar Crime No.12 of 2008

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:39:07 pm )

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J. msa CRL OP(MD) No. 22701 of 2026 and CRL MP(MD) No. 21561 of 2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:39:07 pm )

13.10.2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 07:39:07 pm )