The main legal point established in the judgment is that a private complaint filed by a private party is not maintainable for an offence committed before the court, in accordance with the principles stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

ORDER :

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.T.C.No.501 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, Cuddalore and quash the same.

Challenging the case in S.T.C.No.501 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, Cuddalore, this criminal original petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are accused in S.T.C.No.501 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Panruti. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 211 r/w 120(b) IPC. He further submitted that the first petitioner married one A.R.Salaudeen Abdul Razhak on 19.04.2015. After marriage, the first petitioner went to Dubai along with her husband and her mother-in-law. Thereafter, her husband and mother-in-law demanded for a Talaq to give the passport of the first petitioner. Then, the first petitioner's husband gave three Talaq. Thereafter, the first petitioner lodged a police complaint before the All Women Police Station, on 05.01.2017. Further, in pursuance of this Court direction in Crl.O.P.No.4601 of 2018, All Women Police Panruti registered a case against the respondent/ complainant and 7 other accused persons in Crime No.6 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 406, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and under Section 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 on 16.03.2018. After investigation, final report has been filed in C.C.No.619 of 2019, which was quashed by the Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.103 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021. Thereafter, they are living separately. After quashing C.C.No.619 of 2019, the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint for the offences under Sections 211 r/w 120 (b) IPC against the petitioners.

3. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Sections 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C would be applicable to the fact of this case. It is a proceedings of the Court. Therefore, the offence under Section 211 IPC must be regarded as one committed in relation to those proceedings in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the private complaint would not be taken into cognizance which is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. To support of his argument, he relied the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Brij Lal Palta reported in AIR 1969 SC 355 and in Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 91.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that only in pursuance of the complaint given by the first petitioner, a case has been registered by the All Women Police, Panruti. Since the petitioners gave a false complaint, the case has been registered. Therefore, the private complaint given by the respondent/complainant is maintainable and pleaded to dismiss the criminal original petition.

5. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. On perusal of the records, the fact reveals that the first petitioner lodged a police complaint before the All women Police Station initially on 05.01.2017, however, the same was kept without any action. Therefore, the 1st petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4601 of 2018 and this Court by its order dated 16.02.2018 allowed the direction petition and based on that order, the All Women Police Station, Panruti, Cuddalore registered the case against the respondent/complainant and 7 other accused persons in Crime No.6 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 406, 294(b), 506(1) IPC and under Section 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 16.03.2018. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant and other accused approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9795 of 2018 to quash the F.I.R. However, this Court dismissed the quash petition on 22.03.2019. Then, after i