Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2431 (MAD)

Ala. Pandithevar v. R. Paranthaman

2007-08-02

G.RAJASURIA

body2007
Judgment :- 1. This petition has been filed to call for the entire records relating to C.C.No.51 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur and quash the same. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus: The case in C.C.No.51 of 2006 emerged out of the private complaint lodged by the respondent with the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 500 I.P.C. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate as against the petitioners/A.5 and A.6, this petition has been filed on the main ground that the petitioners are neighbours to the house of A.1 to A.4; even then, the complainant has chosen to rope them in this case as though they cheated the complainant to have the contract of marriage with the girl who did not attain puberty at all, whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent would vehemently oppose on the ground that in the complaint itself, the following versions are found set out: ."KiwapLnthhpd; jfg;gdhh; 5> 6 vjphpfsplk; bgz;Zf;F ,t;tst[ ehs; tiuf;Fk; Vd; jpUkzk; Mftpy;iy VjhtJ Fw;wk;> Fiw cs;sjh vd;W tprhhpj;jhh;. bgz;zpw;F ve;jtpjf; Fiwa[k; fpilahJ vd;Wk;> 1 tJ vjphp rw;W fhyjhkjkhf 18 taJ thf;fpy; jhd; g{g;bga;jpdhh; vd;Wk; rhpahd khg;gps;is tha;f;fhjjhy; jhd; jpUkzk; elf;ftpy;iybad;Wk; 5> 6 vjphpfs; brhy;ypapUf;fpwhh;fs;." 5. Placing reliance on those averments, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that when there are clear allegations of cheating made as against the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, they could be permitted to argue that they are not in any way responsible for the perpetration of the crime by the other accused. The petitioners joined with the parents of the girl and cheated the petitioner to enter into the marriage with the girl who did not even attain puberty. He would also place reliance on the medical certificate obtained by the complainant which according to him would show that his wife did not attain puberty. 6. The core question arises as to whether there is legal ground to proceed further in the said case as against the petitioners/A.5 and A.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 500 I.P.C. 7. 6. The core question arises as to whether there is legal ground to proceed further in the said case as against the petitioners/A.5 and A.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 500 I.P.C. 7. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself would submit that Section 500 I.P.C which is the penal Section for punishment for defamation has not been focussed as against the petitioners herein. The question to be considered is as to whether as against the petitioners, the criminal case could be proceeded under section 417 I.P.C for cheating. 8. Section 415 I.P.C which defines cheating is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Explanation.- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." 9. As per the aforesaid definition of cheating, there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deceive a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived and which act or omission should cause or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property to constitute the offence of cheating. 10. The pertinent question which arises in this case is that as to whether the petitioners were duty bound to divulge anything about the bride, who happened to be their neighbour at the time of they having been enquired by the bridegroom, the complainant or his parents? 11. In my considered opinion, there is no legal obligation or fiduciary obligation at all on the part of the petitioners towards the complainant to do so. But, on the other hand, on the part of the parents of the bride, there is a duty cast upon by law itself that they should disclose any defect in her daughter. There exists fiduciary relationship between the parties to the marriage and their respective parents towards each other. 12. But, on the other hand, on the part of the parents of the bride, there is a duty cast upon by law itself that they should disclose any defect in her daughter. There exists fiduciary relationship between the parties to the marriage and their respective parents towards each other. 12. Here, the petitioners are neighbours and as per the averments in the complaint, they have been approached for enquiring and ascertaining about the girls family and also about the girl. No doubt, there are certain versions in the complaint as though the petitioners had knowledge about the physical defects of the girl, even then, they did not disclose. But, the complaint itself would demonstrate the fact as though the petitioners disclosed that at the age of 18 years, the bride attained puberty and because of that only, her marriage got delayed and now, she is twenty seven years old at that time. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per the averments, only Sethupathi Thirumana Maiyam arranged for the marriage and the petitioners did not arrange for the marriage. For quashment, we should not go into the falsity or genuineness of the averments made. Even taking for granted that those averments are true, the criminal process cannot be allowed to proceed as against the petitioners. There is also nothing to show that the petitioners had requisite mens rea to cheat the complainant, assuming that they happened to be the relatives of the parents of the bride. In this part of the country, it is common knowledge, when before marriage certain relatives of the bride are enquired, they are in the habit of speaking nothing ill of the bride; that is the part and parcel of the culture prevailing in this part of the country. However, the expectation of the complainant that they ought to have disclosed the physical defects of the girl, is a farfetched one. 14. In my considered opinion, such a question can be posed only to the parents of the girl and not to other relatives who might have also participated along with the parents for arranging the marriage. 15. However, the expectation of the complainant that they ought to have disclosed the physical defects of the girl, is a farfetched one. 14. In my considered opinion, such a question can be posed only to the parents of the girl and not to other relatives who might have also participated along with the parents for arranging the marriage. 15. Hence, in this view of the broad proposition and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no sufficient ground against the petitioners to proceed further either under section 417 I.P.C or under Section 500 I.P.C. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2006 is quashed only relating to the petitioners. In respect of other accused, the matter shall be processed as per law. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made an extempore submission that the trial relating to others may be expedited and in view of the pendency of this petition, the trial in that case got delayed. Hence, the trial Judge is expected to dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance. 17. With the above observation, this petition is closed.