JUDGMENT - V.P. TIPNIS, J.:---By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th February, 1987, passed by the learned Addl, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay rejecting the application of the petitioner-complainant for holding the trial in camera as provided under section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint on 21st March, 1985 before the learned Magistrate against respondent No. 1 for offences under sections 493, 496 and 506 part 11 of the Indian Penal Code. Broadly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she was serving with respondent No. 1 accused as a Personal Secretary since about January 1978. Ultimately, they developed intimacy and the accused is alleged to have induced trust and confidence not only in the complainant but also in her family members. The accused, in fact, secured an accommodation for the complainant and her family members at Mahim sometime in June, 1980. It is further narrated that the complainant moved with the accused to various places in India, and on insistence from the complainant and her family members, the accused and the complainant on 24th March, 1983, are alleged to have gone through some marriage ceremony in Shri Datta Mandir situated at Thakurdwar, Bombay. The complainant and the accused cohabited and they had sexual intercourse as husband and wife. Thereafter, they went to Goa. They also went on a tour to Europe, and ultimately, on their return, the accused is alleged to have revealed that he is already a married person and that the complainant should continue the relationship with him and be happy for the rest of her life. It is alleged that after coming to know this, the complainant left the accused. But even thereafter, the accused continued to threaten her that she should live with him as his mistress. 3. On 27th November, 1986, the petitioner made an applications stating that she is a young woman and her oral deposition before the Court relates to very personal and intimate life which she is not in a position to speak out if members of the public are present in the Court. She further submitted that, in the interest of justice, the Court should order the members of the public generally not to be present in the Court room during the trial. The respondent-accused opposed the application. She further submitted that, in the interest of justice, the Court should order the members of the public generally not to be present in the Court room during the trial. The respondent-accused opposed the application. He contended that holding of trial in open is a very important aspect of criminal trial. 4. The learned Magistrate observed that the complainant appears to be a quite grown up woman and she is not a woman doing only house hold work and confined to the four walls of the house. She has taken prominent part in social life by acting as Personal Secretary to the accused himself. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the complainant that she will feel shy when deposing before the Court regarding the facts stated by her in the complaint. The learned Magistrate felt that the complainant is quite a matured and bold lady and she should not feel any hesitation in narrating the true facts. The learned Magistrate further felt that the presence of the public in the present case would not cause any embarrassment to the complainant whom he described as a matured female of world-wide experience. He felt that the complainant should welcome the trial in open Court. 5. Shri Uraizee, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner , contended that the offences with which respondent No. 1 is charged are in the Chapter of the Indian Penal Code with a heading "OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE". Shri Uraizee submitted that if we look at the Central legislation relating to matrimony, we find that there are provisions directing that the proceedings under those Acts should be held in camera. Under section 53 of the Indian Divorce Act, there is an enabling provision that the proceeding may be held in camera whereas under section 33 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and under section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is provided that the proceedings shall be conducted in camera. If this trend is taken into consideration, argued Shri Uraizee, trial for offences relating to marriage should, normally, be held in camera. Shri Uraizee pointed out that the provisions of section 327 do permit that proceedings of a particular case could be held in camera. If this trend is taken into consideration, argued Shri Uraizee, trial for offences relating to marriage should, normally, be held in camera. Shri Uraizee pointed out that the provisions of section 327 do permit that proceedings of a particular case could be held in camera. Shri Uraizee further contended that, in any case, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the complainant woman herself made an applications, there is no reason as to why the proceedings should not be held in camera. Shri Uraizee relied upon certain observations of the Supreme Court to be found in paras 31, 33 and 36 of the decision in (Naresh v. State of Maharastra)1, A.I.R 1967 S.C. 1 as also in (In re Venkataraman)2, A.I.R. (37) 1950 Mad. 441. 6. Shri Raje, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, fully supports the arguments of Shri Uraizee. He submitted that especially when a specific application is made by a prosecutrix, the Court should always grant such protection, in the interest of justice. 7. Shri Bapat, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 accused, contended that conducting trial in public is an important aspect of administration of justice. Security of justice is law publicity administered. Trial in open, he submitted, is the very ethos of criminal jurisprudence. Trial in open is the rule. He further submitted that, in any case, the learned Magistrate has exercised a discretion and this Court in an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not interfere with the said discretion and that such interference should be in the rarest of rare cases, as held by the Supreme Court in (Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana)3, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2229. Lastly, he submitted that, in any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the right of the accused for open trial should not be jeopardised. 8. Now, it is undoubtedly true that open public trial is the normal rule and judicial proceedings being open to public and being conducted in the presence of the public is the very important aspect of our system of judicial administration. However, section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself permits holding of a trial in camera, if the Court deems it fit. However, section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself permits holding of a trial in camera, if the Court deems it fit. The fact that the Parliament thought it fit to provide that the proceedings under the Act relating to marriages should be held in camera is an indication that the legislation felt the necessity therefor. Though it will depend on facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the proceedings should be held in camera, in the case of offences under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, if the prosecutrix makes such application. I do not see any reason as to why the same should not be readily granted. In the facts of the case, the woman made an application. The learned Magistrate has given several reasons, but I do not think those reasons are sufficient to reject the application. In spite of whatever the learned Magistrate has observed one cannot forget that nevertheless, she is a woman and there is nothing wrong if she feels that she will be embarrassed to state all the facts in the presence of members of the public. I also do not see as to how holding the trial in camera will jeopardise or prejudicially affect the interests of respondent No. 1 accused. On consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of various submissions made before me by both the parties, I am of the view that it is expedient , and in the interest of justice, that the trial should be held in camera, as requested by the petitioner, and the learned Magistrate has erred in rejecting her application. 9. In the result, this application succeeds. The order dated 20th February, 1987, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioner for holding the trial in camera is quashed and set aside and it is hereby directed that the trial of the said Case No. 30/W/85 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court Girgaum. Bombay, shall be held in camera meaning thereby that the public generally shall not have access to or remain in the room of the Court during the trial of the said case. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute. -----