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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 17.08.2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 25.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Crl.O.P.No.292 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.142, 12084 & 12087 of 2019

1. K. Thiruththaninathan

2. Karthikeyan

3. Mallika Kaarthikeyan ... Petitioners /vs/

Malliga Murugaraj ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.8886 of 2018 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner ... Mr. C. Munusamy for Mr.R.Arun Dattan For Respondent ... Mr. M.Suresh Viswanath

ORDER

Challenging the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8886 of 2018 on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai the present criminal original petition has been filed.

2. The case of the respondent/complainant is as follows:-

The first petitioner/first accused is the husband of the complainant/wife. Both of them loved each other and got married on 15.03.2007, which was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act before the Registrar office, Chennai Central, in serial No.141 of 2007 and M.C.No.720 of 2007. After marriage, the complaint/2nd respondent and the petitioner/accused were working in a private concerned in Chennai. Subsequently, went to Singapore, where both of them were employed at Rotary Engineering Private Limited. After 3 years of marriage, the first petitioner/husband forced the complainant to resign her job and assured that he would also resign his job and would make arrangements for daily employment for both of them in some other Company in Singapore. But, the first petitioner/husband continued his employment. The complainant/wife after resigning her job, returned to India. After returning to India, the complainant/wife did not get any support from the accused to meet her basic needs and found more defect to get a new employment. Thereafter, she visited Singapore on a tourist viza on 14.01.2016. But the first petitioner/husband never allowed her in their residence at Singapore. Therefore, she stayed in her friend's house. Then return back to India. Meanwhile the first petitioner/husband initiated divorce proceedings in case no. FC/D 395 of 2016 before the Family Justice Courts of the Republic, Singapore to declare their marriage as null and void and since she had not defended the case proceedings, it was degreed exparte on 23.06.2016. The first peitioner by furnishing false facts obtained exparte degree of divorce. The petitioners cheated the complainant / wife and her valuables are with the petitioners and they had taken away of her valuables, jewells, certificates and documents. They left her in a helpless condition. Therefore, the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w. 34 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after marriage, both of them got employment in a private engineering company and settled their matrimonial home at Aminjikarai, Chennai. Thereafter, the first petitioner/husband got a job at Singapore in the month of September, 2012 and the respondent/complainant also followed him in the month of October 2012 and they they were living at Singapore. During the year 2014, the respondent/complainant tendered her resignation and wanted to go back to India as she did not want to live with the first petitioner. The first petitioner has filed the petition for divorce before the Family Court at Singapore on 25.01.2016 since the marriage has broken down irretrievably and after filing counter by the respondent/complainant, divorce has been granted on 23.06.2016 by the Singapore Court . After filing counter statement before the Singapore Court, the respondent came to India and filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the I Additional Family Court at Chennai in FCOP No.794 of 2016 amongst other relief on 17.02.2016 and the same is dismissed on 14.09.2018. Furthermore, the respondent/complainant had filed the case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 29.02.2016 before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai a DVC No.2 of 2016 for the same reliefs sought for in the Family Court at Chennai except the relief of restitution of conjugal rights as against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The petitioners have filed Crl.O.P.No.26537 of 2016 before this Court to quash the proceedings in DVC and the same has been quashed by this Court. While being so, the respondent has again filed the present complaint CC No.8886 of 2018 under Section 200 Cr.P.C for alleged offences under Sections 420, 40

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