ORDER :

(These cases have been heard through video conference)

Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed, praying to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.220 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, and quash the same as illegal.

2. Heard Mr. Mohideen Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.598 of 2018; Mr. Niranjan S. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.18981 of 2019; and Mr. A.P.G. Ohm Chairma Prabhu, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the 1st respondent. Even after showing the name of the 2nd respondent in cause list, none appeared on behalf of her.

3. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18981 of 2019, is the 1st accused in C.C.No.220 of 2017. Similarly, the petitioners 1 to 3 in Crl.O.P.No.598 of 2018 are arrayed as accused No.2 to 4 in the above referred calender case. Both the applications have been filed for the same relief i.e., for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.220 of 2017. Since both the petitions are filed for the identical relief, both the Criminal Original Petitions are taken up together and after hearing the both side arguments, the following common order is pronounced.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent was engaged with the 1st accused and the marriage took place on 19.02.2017. By birth, the 1st accused suffered from certain ailments and in similar, the 2nd respondent is also a physically challenged person. Due to that condition, both the petitioners in the two Criminal Original Petitions and the 2nd respondent's parents have mutually agreed for the marriage between the 1st accused/Hanifa and 2nd respondent/Noorjahan, without any expectation.

5. Immediately after the marriage, on 23.02.2017 efforts were made to register the same before the Registrar of Marriage, Madurai. The accused No.3, being an advocate was surprised to note that the process of registration was not informed to him. When the registration form and connected particulars were seen by accused No.3, it was found that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant's age is 38 years and it was represented as 27 years at the time of marriage. After taking note of the mischief, the same was informed to the Jamaat members and thereafter the 2nd respondent's family members gave a letter of apology on 25.02.2017. Subsequently, keeping all these in mind, the 2nd respondent herein was not able to live peacefully. Hence she left the matrimonial home on 15.04.2017, along with her belongings.

6. On 17.04.2017, while the accused No.3, was preparing himself to go to Court, the 2nd respondent and her family members attacked him and since the accused No.3 was severely injured, for the said offence, a complaint was lodged before the Tideernagar Police Station, Madurai on 17.04.2017 and case has been registered in Crime No.307 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506 (i) of IPC as against the 2nd respondent and her family members. Further, the 1st accused has filed the suit in O.S.No.21 of 2017 before the Family Court, Madurai, seeking for divorce by nullifying the marriage happened on 19.02.2017 between the accused/Hanifa and 2nd respondent/Noorjahan. Further, on 04.05.2017 again the family members of the 2nd respondent attempted to assault the accused No.3 and therefore, a complaint was lodged before the Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai on 05.05.2017 in CSR No.404 of 2017 and the same was enquired and closed. However, on 05.07.2017, the 2nd respondent lodged the 2nd complaint with fresh and false accusations against the petitioners. In respect of the same, the respondent police registered the case in Crime No.17 of 2017 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498A of IPC. Before that, the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, on 05.05.2017 was closed and another complaint, given before the CM Cell, has also been closed, as not necessary. Subsequent to the registration of present