Criminal proceedings cannot substitute civil remedies, especially based on vague allegations without substantial proof.

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.143 of 2022 dated 02.06.2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Cum District Munsiff Court, Neyveli, Cuddalore District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent had seen online advertisement given by the first accused with regards to the matrimonial tie up and she accepted for marriage. The first accused suppressed the fact that he got already married and it was subsisting. Thereafter, the marriage was conducted in a local temple by tying a ‘thali’. However the registration was not possible for want of Village Administrative Officer certificate. When the second respondent wanted to live with the first petitioner, the other petitioners did not allow her to live with the first petitioner. They did not even provide any food to her. In fact, the second respondent was made to stay at hotel with her husband for some days. Thereafter a handicapped lady came and complained that she got married with the first petitioner and she was settled with money by the first petitioner. All the petitioners herein threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore the second respondent lodged complaint on

07.03.2022. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.4 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court and charges were framed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 498(A) & 506(i) of IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent even failed to prove her marriage with the first petitioner. No marriage was taken place between the first petitioner and the second respondent herein. Though the second respondent alleged that the first petitioner cheated several ladies, it is not substantiated by any material evidence. Even as per the complaint and her statement, no offence is made out under Section 417 of IPC. The second respondent never lived with the first petitioner as his wife. Except the second respondent, no one has spoken about any specific overt act as against the petitioners to attract any of the charges. Therefore, the entire proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the first petitioner got married the second respondent and thereafter left her in lurch. In fact, the other petitioners 2 to 6 did not even allow her to enter the matrimonial house and they stayed in hotel. Thereafter, the second respondent came to knowledge that the first petitioner got married three ladies and they were settled by giving money. Suppressing those facts, the first petitioner married the second respondent herein and cheated her. All the charges are clearly made out as against the petitioners and the grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be considered on its threshold, As such, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that after completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report for charges under Sections 417, 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC. There are specific allegations against each of the petitioners to attract those charges under Sections 417, 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioners can be considered only during trial by letting in evidence. As such, he prayed for