The court emphasized that the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and declined to quash the proceedings based on the points raised by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No.56/2016, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.)

1. Accused is the Petitioner herein, seeking quashment of proceedings in Sessions Case No.56/2016, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

2(a). The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows:

Both the Petitioner/Accused and the Defacto Complainant completed their B.E., Degree in Matha Engineering College, Kundrathur, Chennai, during the academic year 2006-2010. During December 2010, the Petitioner/Accused secured employment in CTS, Chennai and got placement at Bangalore. During October 2013, the Defacto Complainant and her parents have visited the home of the Petitioner, regarding marriage and the same was not materialised and subjected to threat.

2(b) The first complaint was before the Chrompet Police station on 16.10.2013, alleging that the Complainant and Accused are classmates i.e., during college period 2006-2010 and they loved each other. They were friends for 4 years and then became lovers. They met weekly two times and when the Complainant asked Accused to talk to his parents for marriage few days before, Accused had said “No” as his family was not agreeable. Based on the said complaint, the Petitioner and his Father taken to Chrompet Police Station on 16.10.2013 and on 17.10.2013, affidavits of the Petitioner and his Father stating that the Petitioner will marry the Defacto Complainant, were forcibly obtained from them.

2(c). During October 2013, the Petitioner/Accused left for Dubai, there was legal notice from the Complainant, during May 2014 and the same was replied by the Petitioner. The sum and substance of the exchange of notice between the parties are to the effect that the Complainant and the Petitioner were good friends. During 2007, the Petitioner proposed the Complainant and she accepted. The Petitioner compelled the Complainant and took her to his house and had physical relationship, many times using contraceptives. During 2013, the Complainant called the Accused's parents and informed about their love affair, Accused stopped contacting/talking with the Complainant. As per Complainant, on 14.10.2013, Complainant and her parents visited Accused's house and talked to his parents about marriage, but as per the reply of the Accused, the Complainant and her parents visited them only on 16.10.2013, immediately prior to lodging of the first complaint. In the reply notice, the Accused denied each and every allegations and mentioned the email threat from Defacto Complainant to Petitioner's sister.

2(d). The Second complaint was during August 2014 and the substance of the complaint are to the effect that the Complainant and the Petitioner were best friends in College, after 8 months, Petitioner had told Complainant that he loves her, Complainant initially was reluctant, when the Accused compelled her, she agreed to love him. For 6 years, the Complainant and the Petitioner were lovers. In the year 2010, the Complainant got the job in Bangalore and the Petitioner got the job in Siruseri. During June 2011, Petitioner came to Bangalore and visited her in hostel and when she was alone, saying that he will marry her, insisted her for physical relationship. Since the Complainant refused, Accused went back to Chennai. Thereafter, Accused did not contact the complainant. During December 2011, when the Complainant visited Petitioner's house, he forced her to have physical relationship, further Petitioner compelled her to have the same on every Saturday & Sunday and took obscene video and photos and threatened her. Whenever she avoided to visit Chennai, Petitioner visited her in Bangalore, threatened her to upload the photos in internet and forcibly compelled to have physical relationship for more than 150 times.

2(e). Based upon the above said complaint, the pres