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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 4236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
K.R. Meenakshi - Appellants
Vs.
M. Jayanthi and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. No. 21636 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2012
Decided On : 22-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Kumarasamy for Y. Deva Arul Prakash
For the Respondents: S.T. Raja for Om Sai Ram Associates

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 200 - Pending trial and quash - Cognizance of the offence. - Petition filed by petitioner to call for records- Complainant has alleged that she got married to the 2nd respondent and from the wedlock, two children were born and both the children were living with the complainant. According to the complainant, 2nd respondent was having extra marital affairs with number of women and at the instance of his concubines; he had committed untold cruelties on the complainant and her children and driven them out of the matrimonial home. There were Family Court cases between the complainant and the 2nd respondent. Since the 2nd respondent agreed to take back the complainant and her children, the Court cases were withdrawn. Even after withdrawal of the Court cases, the 2nd respondent had continued his illicit relationship with his concubines – Held, It is to be noted that in a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, has to be established, and even admission of the marriage by the accused is not the evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage. Thus, taking into consideration the complaint filed by the 1st respondent, it has to be stated that the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the second marriage by the 2nd respondent with the petitioner taken along with the sworn statement did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 IPC and on the allegations made in the complaint, no prudent person could reach a conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner/second accused - It is settled law that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is competent to the High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence - Criminal Original Petition is allowed

ORDER :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for records in C.C. No. 785 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, pending trial and quash the same. The 1st respondent is the complainant and she had filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

2. In her complaint, the complainant has alleged that she got married to the 2nd respondent on 17.1.1983 and from the wedlock, two children namely Kiran Pradeep and Praveen Sandeep were born and both the children were living with the complainant. According to the complainant, the 2nd respondent was having extra marital affairs with number of women and at the instance of his concubines, he had committed untold cruelties on the complainant and her children and driven them out of the matrimonial home. There were Family Court cases between the complainant and the 2nd respondent. Since the 2nd respondent agreed to take back the complainant and her children, the Court cases were withdrawn. Even after withdrawal of the Court cases, the 2nd respondent had continued his illicit relationship with his concubines.

3. The complainant had filed O.P. No. 3680 of 2011 for restitution of conjugal rights and had obtained an order of status quo against the properties of the 2nd respondent. Upon coming to know the status quo order, the 2nd respondent had started to openly challenge that he would spoil the complainant and her children and also threatened that he would settle the valuable properties in favour of the petitioner, whom the 2nd respondent seems to have got married as his second wife when the complainant, who is his legally wedded wife was alive and the marriage was in force.

4. In the complaint, it has been stated that the 2nd respondent had gone to live with the petitioner at Panaiyur Guest House and at her instigation, the 2nd respondent threatened the complainant with dire consequences and permitted the petitioner to take charge of the business of the family and driven out the complainant and her children from the company after abusing them in filthy language and in an unparliamentary words.

5. According to the complainant, the petitioner, who had originally came to work in the company of the complainant and the 2nd respondent, had dominated every where and she was the person behind all the atrocities committed by the 2nd respondent on his legally wedded wife and children. She had no manner of any right whatsoever to intervene in the family life. According to the complainant, the 2nd respondent got married the petitioner as his second wife. After getting illegally conceived, the petitioner had started to threaten the complainant and her children. There was a constant threat on the life of the complainant. In pursuance of the said bigamy marriage, the petitioner had changed her name also as wife of the 2nd respondent and the same has been published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent celebrated seemandam on 16.10.2011 in a very grand manner in Asiana Hotel at IT Expressway, Semmenchery, Chennai.

6. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner had conspired with the 2nd respondent and expelled two sons of the complainant from the company and made them on street now. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent have committed the offences of bigamy marriage, illegal cohabitation, threat and coercion, criminal conspiracy and intimidation for which offence, they are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 493, 494,120(b) and 506(ii) IPC. The learned Magistrate taken up cognizance of the offence in C.C. No. 21636 of 2012 on its file and issued summons.

7. The petitioner had filed quash petition stating that she is the Vice President (Purchase) employed with M/s. Diamond Engineering Private Limited having units at Sholinganalur, Pudupakkam and Mambakkam. She joined in the said organisation and out of her sheer hard work developed to the status of Vice President (Purchase).



































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