SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 2641

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Padmavathy
Versus
Kumarasamy
Crl.O.P.No.15452 of 2007
Decided on: 24-07-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. Hari babu, Advocate. For the Respondent:M/s. R. Sankara Subbu, Advocate.

Transactions between husband and wife, based on the husband-wife relationship, are not subject to criminal laws like Section 409 and 420 of IPC.

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Husband and Wife - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

Fact of the Case:

The respondent/husband filed a criminal case against his wife/petitioner for alleged offences under Section 409 and 420 IPC, claiming that she had taken gold ornaments and money sent by him for investment. The petitioner contended that the transactions were based on the husband-wife relationship.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transactions between the husband and wife, including the transfer of gold and money, were based on the husband-wife relationship and therefore criminal laws like Section 409 and 420 of IPC would not apply.

Issues: Dispute over gold ornaments and money between husband and wife, Allegations of adultery and cheating

Ratio Decidendi: Transactions between husband and wife, including transfer of gold and money, based on the husband-wife relationship are not subject to criminal laws like Section 409 and 420 of IPC.

Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in the criminal case against the petitioner were quashed.

Judgment :

The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.15452 of 2007 to call for the records in C.C.No.2893 of 2006 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

2. The respondent/husband states as follows:

The respondent/husband has filed C.C.No.2893 of 2006 against his wife/petitioner herein on an alleged offence under 409 r/w. 420 IPC. The respondent contended in his complaint that he married the petitioner on 03.02.1984 and he had two children through his wife. Further, the respondent is an engineer by profession and he worked in various places like Chennai, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Sudan. The respondent had entrusted 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner/wife due to love and affection. On the petitioners inducement, the respondent sent huge amounts of money to her name periodically for investment in profitable deposits to improve the financial position of the complainant. The sum total of the money sent amounted to Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. Further, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner has developed illicit intimacy with one Satishkumar. On 01.03.2002, the petitioner and the said Satishkumar were found in compromising position in the bedroom of the respondent. The same was witnessed by her daughter and son besides neighbours of the locality. The respondent also made several complaints, regarding the illegal act of the accused. Further, the respondent in his complaint had sought return of Rs.20 lakhs and 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to the petitioner.

4. Further, the respondent has alleged that on 01.07.2003, the petitioner looted 36 sovereigns of gold, which was kept in locker of Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch, Chennai and which was jointly operated along with daughter. Further, the respondent contended that the petitioner took 36 sovereigns of gold jewellery from the bank locker besides Rs.17 lakhs entrusted to her, over a period of four years, from various banks. It is alleged that the said amount has been spent by the petitioner to lead a wayward life and indulge in adultery with one Satishkumar, who is residing at No.4/2, Kaliappan Naicken Street, Elumalayan Avenue, Ramavaram, Chennai-89. So, it is alleged that as the petitioner has cheated him, she is liable to be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC. Supporting the respondents complaint, he has mentioned two witnesses ie., his daughter and son besides himself and also mentioned four documents. The said case has been taken by the learned Magistrate on his file as C.C.No.2893 of 2006.

5. The petitioner has contended in her petition that as the petitioners father had helped the respondent in all aspects, the respondent was able to complete his studies. Subsequently, the petitioners father decided to give the petitioner to the respondent in marriage. Accordingly, the marriage was celebrated. After marriage, difference of opinion arose between the respondent and petitioner. Even then, both lived as husband and wife in Chennai and various other places. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. The petitioner has made out lot of allegations about the respondents brother in that his brother attempted to misbehave with her for sexual contact. The petitioner had further alleged that due to continuous harassment of the petitioner, she left the marital home and had forcibly joined her parents. Regarding the dispute between them, the petitioner filed M.C.No.274 of 2003 before the Family Court, Chennai. The petitioner had also filed O.P.No.1996 of 2003 for divorce. The Respondent filed O.P.No.1674 of 2004 for restitution of conjugal rights. Now, the respondent has filed C.C.No.2893 of 2006 against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 409 and 420 IPC.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued the case.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the respondent gave 36 sovereigns of gold jewellery out of love and affection to the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top