Madras High Court
T.Ramalingam vs A.K.Sathyabama on 11 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 77
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :11.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Crl.OP.No.19637 of 2011
and
MP.No.1 of 2011
1. T.Ramalingam
2. T.Maniammal
3. P.Muthumani
4. S.Meenatchi
5. S.Karpagavalli
6. S.Suganya ... Petitioners
Vs.
A.K.Sathyabama ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the complaint in C.C.No.23/2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Shankar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Nalliyappan
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records and quash the complaint in C.C.No.23/2011, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet.
2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 in C.C.No.23 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Udumalpet. The respondent/complainant A.K.Sathyabama, D/o.A.K.Kandasamy, residing at No.3/3, Kennedy Nagar, Poolankinaru P.O., Udumalpet Taluk, has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, against the accused Nos. 1 to 9 for the alleged offences under Sections 494 and 109 IPC.
3. The contention of the respondent/complainant in the private complaint is that she married R.Sundararajan (A1) on 04.04.2004 at Ramayyar Kalyana Mandapam, Udumalpet and she was also blessed with a child. According to the respondent/complainant, her husband deserted her after the birth of her child. Meanwhile, on 18.07.2010, the respondent/complainant came to know through one Thangammal and one Sivamurugan that her husband (A1) married one Sudarvizhi (A2) on 16.07.2010 at Maruthamalai Murugan Temple, Coimbatore. In the complaint, the respondent/complainant had averred that the first accused married the second accused and the other accused abetted the commission of the offence by the first and second accused.
4. Mr.S.Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contended that since the first accused informed them that he had already divorced his first wife, they attended the marriage and hence, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent/complainant and that this is also mentioned in the complaint filed by the respondent. On the contrary, in this petition filed by the petitioners for quashing the private complaint, it is specifically averred that there was no marriage between the first and the second accused as alleged by the respondent/complainant on 16.07.2010 at Maruthamalai Murugan Temple, Coimbatore and that no marriage certificate is produced before this Court.
5. In the private complaint, the respondent/complainant had specifically mentioned the role played by each and every accused for commission of the offence by the first accused under Section 494 IPC. Whether the petitioners/accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 abetted the commission of the offence or not has to be decided only after recording the evidence on both sides and at this stage, the present petition cannot be allowed. Also, a criminal trial is contemplated only on the definite allegations, prima facie, establishing the commission of an offence by the accused which has to be proved by leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence in the course of trial against the accused.
6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.04.2018 Speaking/Non speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No mk To The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet.
R. HEMALATHA.J., mk Crl.OP.No.19637 of 2011 11.04.2018