2018 Supreme(Mad) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
C. Arumugam - Petitioner
Versus
Mahalakshmi - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 1325 of 2017
Decided On : 15-03-2018
For the Petitioner:S. Rajanbabu for M/s. Raji & Rajan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:T. Meganathan, R. Suriya Prakash, Government Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) - Prohibition of Child Marriage Act - Section 10 - POSCO Act 2012 - Section 4 - Child marriage - Forcible marriage - Petitioner/de-facto complainant is that he has given a complaint before the District Social Welfare Officer, alleging that the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 8 in the above Crime Number has conducted Betrothal (Engagement) between the 6th accused and the minor girl - Held, Pursuant to the order of this Court, the explanation given by the learned Magistrate is accepted by this Court and hence there is no necessity arose this Court to pass any order against the learned Magistrate, since under the impression that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act comes under the jurisdiction of Magistrate Courts, he granted bail to the 1st respondent/4th accused - Ordered accordingly
1. The petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.15 of 2016, challenging the order in un-numbered Crl.M.P.No. of 2017, dated 13.08.2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam.
2. It is the case of the petitioner/de-facto complainant is that he has given a complaint before the District Social Welfare Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore on 15.04.2016 alleging that the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 8 in the above Crime Number has conducted Betrothal (Engagement) between the 6th accused and the minor girl namely, Vembu on 11.04.2016.
3. It is also alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 5 has illegally collected consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and 10 Sovereigns of gold Ornaments from the accused No.6 to 8 to perform a child marriage. After the said complaint, the District Social Welfare Officer has called upon the Accused Nos.1 to 8 in the said case and asked them to stop the said child marriage, since it is forcible marriage and the said minor girl namely, Vembu has also not interested in the child marriage, the accused Nos.1 to 8 were forced the minor girl to accept the marriage.
4. Despite of the Advice given by the District Social Welfare Officer, the 6th accused married the said minor girl Vembu on 08.06.2016 forcibly with the help of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 and Accused Nos.7 and 8.
5. It is also further alleged that the complaint given by the petitioner, after the marriage, the 6th accused has forcibly had physical relationship with the said minor girl Vembu on every day on several occasions for more than five months against the will of the said minor girl. The said barbaric act was done by the 6th accused with the help of accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and 8.
6. Originally on registering the case, the 2nd accused namely, one Malliga, who is the mother of the said minor girl Vembu was arrested and sent to judicial custody and subsequently released on bail by the Lower Court itself. The other accused Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were obtained Anticipatory Bail before this Court on 26.08.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.16104 of 2016 and Crl.O.P.No.18943 of 2016 respectively, by suppressing all the material facts.
7. It is further case of the petitioner is that on 07.10.2016, the respondent/Police has produced the minor girl Vembu before the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore to get the report on Medical Examination of a Female Victim of Sex Offence. The said victim minor girl was examined by the authorized Government Medical Practitioners of the said Government Hospital on the same day and they found that the said victim girl having sexual intercourse with his husband namely, the 6th accused in the case. Hence, on 23.11.2016, the respondent/Police has altered the said case as offences under Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of POSCO Act, 2012. Thereafter, immediately, the respondent/Police arrested the 6th accused on 23.11.2016 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Virudhachalam and the 6th accused was remanded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Virudhachalam. But, on 24.11.2016 itself, the 6th accused was released on bail, but no medical examination was conducted to the 6th accused by the respondent Police.
8. It is the case of the petitioner is that the offences punishable under Section 4 of POSCO Act 2012 are all very serious and grave in nature, which is very much against the society. It is also further stated that the medical examination was not conducted to the 6th accused in the said case and custodial interrogation are very much essential, since the accused would have tamper and hamper the witnesses as well as the evidences. In the interest of justice, the petitioner moved this Court for Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail already granted in Crl.O.P.No.26563 of 2016 and Crl.O.P.No.26564 of 2016 and this Court by order dated 18.04.2017 has cancelled the Anticipatory Bail to the accused Nos.1,