Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4728 (MAD)

Vadivel v. V. D. Karthikeyan

2010-10-26

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The petitioners 1 to 5 have been arraigned as A1 to A5 in the Criminal case instituted on a private complaint by the respondent on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore in C.C.No.204 of 2006. Fifth Petitioner Kalpana (A5) is the wife of the respondent Dr.V.D.Karthikeyan /the complainant. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents and the petitioners 3 and 4 are respectively brother and sister of the fifth petitioner / fifth accused. They have approached this Court by way of the present Crl.O.P.No.2358 of 2007 for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore in C.C.No.204 of 2006 on the private complaint of the respondent herein presented under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging commission of offences by the petitioners 1 to 5 punishable under Sections 406, 506(ii) and 420 IPC. 2. In the said complaint, the respondent has made the following allegations:- i) The respondent (complainant) is a doctor by profession, specialised in Ophthalmology. He never had an intention to go anywhere out of India seeking employment or settling down in a foreign country. Only in 2004, he decided to marry and browsed the internet to find prospective brides. While doing so, he came across the resume of the fifth petitioner and contacted her parents, brother and sister viz., the petitioners 1 to 4 herein. The negotiations for the marriage was held in absentia of the fifth petitioner, who was then employed in USA and the respondent had the opportunity of seeing her only in the photograph. After the marriage proposal was finalised and the date was fixed, the fifth petitioner came down to India and their marriage was solemnized on 31.01.2005 at Tirupathi according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was subsequently registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, Chennai on 18.02.2005. ii) The fifth petitioner and the respondent had their marital life together at Vellore till 27.02.2005, when she went back to USA assuring the respondent that she would wind up her work and return to India to lead a happy marital life with the respondent. The marriage was subsequently registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, Chennai on 18.02.2005. ii) The fifth petitioner and the respondent had their marital life together at Vellore till 27.02.2005, when she went back to USA assuring the respondent that she would wind up her work and return to India to lead a happy marital life with the respondent. Before the marriage, the respondent made it clear that he did not have any idea of going to USA and he wanted his wife to wind up her job in USA and return back to Tamil Nadu to lead the life with the respondent and the said condition was accepted by the petitioners. But soon after the marriage date was finalized, the petitioners 1 to 4 demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as the fifth petitioner needed the money for her return. Subsequent to her departure to USA, she was in touch with the respondent over phone and informed him that her employer in USA was reluctant to accept her resignation and hence, she needed another sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to process her quick return and asked the respondent to pay the said amount to her parents. Accordingly, in the month of June 2005, the respondent paid the above said amount to the petitioners 1 to 4, who received it on the pretext that they would sent it to the fifth petitioner. Again the petitioners 1 to 4 wanted the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-for their urgent necessities, as they were unable to meet their expenses at Chennai due to clogging of funds. Believing the said version, in September 2005, the respondent paid the said sum also to the petitioners 1 to 4. In all, the respondent has parted with a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-to the petitioners. Only thereafter, the respondent was able to see the real colour of the petitioners. The petitioners made a false representation, as if the fifth petitioner needed the money for winding up her job in USA to come down to India and made the respondent to part with a huge amount of Rs.17,00,000/-without having any intention to do so. iii) In fact, within 5 months from the date of marriage, the fifth petitioner gave birth to a male child in USA in the month of June 2005. iii) In fact, within 5 months from the date of marriage, the fifth petitioner gave birth to a male child in USA in the month of June 2005. Even the birth of the child was not informed to the respondent and only in the month of December 2005, the respondent came to know that the fifth petitioner delivered a male child in June 2005. The respondent and the fifth petitioner had been together only for a short spell i.e., a week in the month of February 2005. The fifth petitioner seems to have had premarital sexual intercourse with some Tom, dick and harry in USA and got impregnated before November 2004. Suppressing the same, her marriage with the respondent was performed and the same would amount to cheating. A total sum of Rs.17,22,000/-had been entrusted to the petitioners on the assurance that they would remit back the same to the respondent by the disposal of the house belonging to the petitioners 1 to 4. Adding fuel to the agony, the fifth petitioner came to India on 04.03.2006 and went back to USA on 14.03.2006. During her short spell of stay in India, the attitude of the fifth petitioner and the members of her parental family towards the respondent caused untold mental agony, shame and humiliation to the respondent. Then only the respondent was able to realize that all the petitioners jointly conspired together by suppressing the fact that the fifth petitioner had conceived through another person and that the petitioners extracting money under false pretext to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/-on making false promises, which act would amount to offences punishable under Sections 406 and 520 IPC r/w.120-B IPC. When the petitioners 1 to 4 were questioned about the above said acts, they not only gave evasive answers, but the first petitioner caused a threat to do away with the respondent. 3. On presentation of the said complaint, ostensibly following the private complaint procedure, the statement of the respondent herein (complainant) was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV on 20.06.2006 and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.204 of 2006 directing issue of summons to the petitioners herein. 3. On presentation of the said complaint, ostensibly following the private complaint procedure, the statement of the respondent herein (complainant) was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV on 20.06.2006 and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.204 of 2006 directing issue of summons to the petitioners herein. But the summons to the petitioners herein (accused) were issued stating that they were to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore to answer to the charge of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.204 of 2006. 4. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, taking cognizance of the complaint of the respondent, registering it as C.C.No.204 of 2006 and issuing summons, is sought to be quashed by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the grounds that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV in taking cognizance of the complaint and also in issuing summons assuming it to be a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the complaint itself is a glaring example of abuse of process of Court containing false and untenable allegations accompanied by mutilated and fabricated documents besides showing inherent contradictions and infirmities. 5. Besides refuting the allegations made in the complaint, the fifth petitioner herein, in the affidavit, has also made the following averments:- (i)It is an utter false to state that the fifth petitioner was impregnated through someone in USA and that the respondent is not the father of the male child born to her in June 2005. On the other hand, during the month of March 2004 an advertisement had been given in the tamil matrimoni.com on behalf of the fifth petitioner. The respondent, who come across the advertisement, responded to the same and sent messages on 14.05.2004 through e-mail, when the fifth petitioner was in USA. There were discussions between the first petitioner (father of the fifth petitioner) and the father of the respondent for having the marriage celebrated at the end of June 2004. However, the fifth petitioner could come to Chennai only on 29.09.2004 from USA and the respondent received her at the airport. There were discussions between the first petitioner (father of the fifth petitioner) and the father of the respondent for having the marriage celebrated at the end of June 2004. However, the fifth petitioner could come to Chennai only on 29.09.2004 from USA and the respondent received her at the airport. On 30.09.2004 respondent took the fifth petitioner to Vellore, where the parents of the respondent were living and thereafter on 02.10.2004, he took her to Pondicherry where the respondent was employed at that point of time. Again on 05.10.2004, the respondent took the fifth petitioner to Pondicherry for her tooth extraction. It was the respondent who made payment to the hospital. During the visits of the fifth petitioner along with the respondent to Pondicherry, they stayed in the quarters of the respondent and since the marriage between them was confirmed not only by them but also by their parents and the respondent persuaded the fifth petitioner to have sex with him, unable to resist his persistent demand, the fifth petitioner had sexual intercourse with the respondent several times during October 2004. Thereafter, on 06.10.2004, the fifth petitioner left for USA. (ii)Again on 26.12.2004, the fifth petitioner returned from USA and on the very next day viz., on 27.12.2004, the respondent took her to Pondicherry for consultation with Obstetrician and Gynaecologist. Her pregnancy was confirmed after various tests in the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, where the respondent was employed at that point of time. The respondent was very much aware that the fifth petitioner was pregnant even before the solemnization of marriage and it was the respondent who caused that pregnancy. Knowing the said facts fully well, he married the fifth petitioner and the marriage was solemnized in Arulmighu Govindaraja Perumal Koil, Udayapatti, Salem on 01.01.2005. From 01.01.2005 to 28.01.2005, both of them stayed at Pondicherry. The marriage was once again solemnized at Tirupati on 31.01.2005 as per the desire of the parents of the respondent. On 30.01.2005 itself, the respondent resigned his job at Pondicherry and on 05.02.2005, the couple vacated the hospital quarters, came down to Chennai and thereafter were staying in the house of the parents of the fifth petitioner at Chennai till 25.02.2005, the date on which the fifth petitioner left for USA. (iii)The respondent obtained passport on 04.02.2005 and made attempts to obtain USA Visa on several occasions. (iii)The respondent obtained passport on 04.02.2005 and made attempts to obtain USA Visa on several occasions. He even pestered the fifth petitioner to obtain invitation for him from organizers of National Conference in USA. Meanwhile on 29.09.2005, he went to Bangladesh and secured a job in Bangladesh. During his stay in Bangladesh, he remitted a total sum of US $ 15,886.31 on three spells, the particulars of which are as follows:- 27.6.2005-US $ 4,441.00 29.8.2005-US $ 1,465.31 30.9.2005- US $ 9,980.00 Total-US $ 15,886.31 All the said remittances were made from Bangladesh to the Bank account of the fifth petitioner in the hope of getting a Visa for USA so that the respondent and the fifth petitioner could settle in USA. At no point of time, the respondent insisted upon that the fifth petitioner should quit her job and return to India. The laboratory results dated 28.12.2004 and the medical certificate were forwarded by the respondent to the fifth petitioner to USA on 12.03.2005. The said documents would confirm beyond doubt that the fifth petitioner was pregnant during December 2004. Various materials sent by the respondent will reveal that he was aware of not only the fifth petitioners pregnancy, but also the delivery of a male baby and that he had shown affection towards that baby and was very much concerned with the welfare of the baby also. The averments contrary to the above facts made by the respondent in his complaint are false. 6. Even during the subsistence of the marriage with the fifth petitioner, the father of the respondent gave an advertisement on 31.05.2006 in Tamil Matrimony media web site, wherein the respondent and his father have admitted the fact that the child is that of the respondent. As the respondent could not get Visa, the fifth petitioner wanted to return the amounts remitted by the respondent and for that purpose she wanted the respondent to furnish his Bank account Number and necessary details so as to enable her to transfer the amount to his account. But the respondent failed to do so. The fifth petitioner never had any sexual intercourse with any person other than the respondent. She is also prepared for the DNA test to prove the paternity of the child. The allegations regarding alleged cheating and misappropriation are also false. But the respondent failed to do so. The fifth petitioner never had any sexual intercourse with any person other than the respondent. She is also prepared for the DNA test to prove the paternity of the child. The allegations regarding alleged cheating and misappropriation are also false. The respondent deliberately deleted several sentences from the original letters sent by e-mail, edited the same and produced such edited copies along with this complaint with ulterior motive. The complaint preferred by the respondent is a glaring example of abuse of process of law. Added to that, the learned Judicial Magistrate also, without application of mind, mechanically took the complaint on file and issued summons to the petitioners, assuming that the complaint was one made for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 7. Based on the above said averments, the criminal case pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore registered as C.C.No. 204 of 2006, is sought to be quashed on the grounds that cognizance of the complaint by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV is vitiated because of non-application of mind and error apparent on the face of record and on the ground that the complaint itself is a glaring example of abuse of process of Court. 8. The arguments advanced by Mr.Muthumani Doraisamy, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent were heard. The materials placed before the Court were also perused. 9. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein as C.C.No. 204 of 2006 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, based on the private complaint preferred by the respondent herein, is sought to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the following grounds:- 1. There is apparent error on records showing non-application of mind on the part of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV in taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing summons on the assumption that the complaint was made for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas the complaint was made for offences under Sections 406, 506(ii) and 420 IPC. 2. 2. The complaint is an abuse of process of law containing inbuilt improbabilities of the story of the complainant, besides the same being based on fabricated documents, which will also amount to a fraud played upon the Court. 10. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.204 of 2006 is sought to be quashed firstly on the ground that there was non-application of mind in taking cognizance of the complaint. The complaint was titled as complaint for offences punishable under Sections 405, 506(ii) and 420 IPC. However, in the prayer portion, it has been stated that the petitioners 1 to 5 had committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 520 IPC r/w.120-B IPC. But the summons by the Magistrate was issued to answer the charge of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Copy of the summons served on the petitioners have been included in the typed-set of papers at page 9, which shows that summons was issued citing offence for which the case was taken on file as one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A perusal of the records of the Court below summoned to this Court, shows that an order was passed on the complaint taking the same on file for offences punishable under Sections 406, 506(ii) and 420 IPC and issue of process was directed. The said order was passed on 20.06.2006. However, while issuing the summons, which was signed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 23.06.2006, a mistake creeped in, as the offence was described to be one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate has signed the impugned summons without verification, can be taken as an example of non-application of mind not in taking cognizance of the offence but in issuing the process of the Court. That may be a ground for setting aside the summons. But, so far as the validity of the order taking cognizance of the offence and directing issuance of process is concerned, the same shall have no effect. The Court shall have the power to rectify the mistake and issue summons specifying the correct offence for which the case has been taken on file. But, so far as the validity of the order taking cognizance of the offence and directing issuance of process is concerned, the same shall have no effect. The Court shall have the power to rectify the mistake and issue summons specifying the correct offence for which the case has been taken on file. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings initiated based on the complaint and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate taking it on file and numbering it as C.C.No.204 of 2006, cannot be quashed on the sole ground that a wrong summons has been issued. 11. The fifth petitioner Kalpana is the wife of the respondent Dr. V.D.Karthikeyan. Their marriage was solemnized in Arulmighu Govindaraja Perumal Koil, Udayapatti, Salem on 01.01.2005. Subsequently, as per the desire of the parents of the respondent, marriage between the fifth petitioner and the respondent was once again solemnized at Tirupathi on 31.01.2005. But the respondent, in his complaint, has suppressed the fact that his marriage with the fifth petitioner was originally solemnized on 01.01.2005 in Arulmighu Govindaraja Perumal Koil, Udayapatti, Salem. Suppressing the said fact, he has chosen to incorporate an averment in the complaint as if their marriage, for the first time, took place on 31.01.2005 at Tirupathi and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Periamet, Chennai on 18.02.2005. It is true that the respondent, along with the complaint, has enclosed a certified extract of Hindu Marriage Register obtained from the office of the Marriage Registrar, Periamet, Chennai. A copy of the same served on the petitioners along with the copy of the complaint has also been filed in this petition. In the said the extract of Hindu Marriage Register, at Column 7, Arulmighu Govindaraja Perumal Koil, Udayapatti, Salem is noted as the address where the marriage was solemnized. In Column 8, date of the marriage has also been noted as 01.01.2005. It is in consonance with the averments made in the affidavit of the fifth petitioner filed in this Court. The fifth respondent has not suppressed the further fact that, in order to satisfy the faith of the parents of the respondent/complainant, their marriage was once again solemnized at Sri Venkateswara Temple in Tirupathi on 31.01.2005. It is in consonance with the averments made in the affidavit of the fifth petitioner filed in this Court. The fifth respondent has not suppressed the further fact that, in order to satisfy the faith of the parents of the respondent/complainant, their marriage was once again solemnized at Sri Venkateswara Temple in Tirupathi on 31.01.2005. The fifth petitioner has not denied the fact of such a celebration of marriage in Tirupathi on 31.01.2005 as revealed by the respondent/complainant in paragraph 6 of his complaint. On the other hand, the petitioners through the affidavit of the fifth petitioner, have furnished the entire facts without suppressing anything. 12. On the other hand, it is quite obvious from the document produced by the respondent/complainant along with the complaint itself, that the respondent/complainant had suppressed the fact that the marriage originally took place on 01.01.2005 and that he has made an attempt to show that the marriage took place on the last day of January 2005 (31.01.2005), i.e., nearly one month later. The said suppression of fact was made by the respondent/complainant, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, with an ulterior purpose of showing that the fifth petitioner gave birth to a child within five months from the date of marriage. The said suppression of fact was made with an intention of showing a shorter time gap between the date of marriage and the date on which the fifth petitioner gave birth to a child. Hence, the omission to state the fact that the marriage originally took place on 01.01.2005 and the said marriage alone was registered, even though subsequently they went through a form of marriage at Tirupathi in order to satisfy the sentiments of the parents of the respondent/complainant, will no doubt amount to deliberate suppression of fact. 13. One of the grounds on which he has preferred the complaint against the petitioners, especially the fifth petitioner, is that the fifth petitioner had premarital illicit intimacy with someone in USA and she was impregnated by such a person in USA, even before the marriage; that suppressing the said fact, she married the respondent/complainant and that the same would amount to cheating since the respondent/complainant would not have married her, if at all such a fact had been brought to his notice and had not been suppressed by the petitioners. The complaint had been couched in such words, as if there was no communication between the fifth petitioner and respondent/complainant prior to 31.01.2005 and that she lived with him for about six days alone during which period she would not have conceived. The very language used by the respondent/complainant is extracted here under for better appreciation:- "This act of the 5th accused and her people in deliberately suppressing that the fifth petitioner had got impregnated before November 2004 though some Tom dick and harry in USA amount to plain act of cheating by the accused." 14. The respondent/complainant has made an attempt in the complaint to project him to be an ignorant person to marry the fifth petitioner, who was already pregnant through some other person. It should be noticed that the respondent/complainant is a doctor by profession and also a post graduate in Ophthalmology. In the sworn statement of the respondent, he has stated that he is a Medical Officer and Eye Specialist consultant in Tamil Nadu Medical University and also working as a Professor in Meenakshi Medical College Hospital, Kancheepuram. It is highly improbable, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that he would have been cheated by suppressing the pregnancy of the fifth petitioner before her marriage with him. 15. On the other hand, the fact remains that the respondent/complainant had suppressed a vital fact that there was premarital sexual intercourse by him with the fifth petitioner and the fifth petitioner allowed it, as their marriage had been settled by the elders. The fifth petitioner has also produced documents to show that she had been to Pondicherry and was in the company of the respondent in the first week of October 2004, where they had sexual intercourse; that the same was the cause of her pregnancy and that the fact that she was carrying a child was confirmed by the respondent/complainant himself by getting her examined by an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist in the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, where the respondent was employed at that point of time. The fifth petitioner has also produced documents to show that the medical certificate and laboratory results dated 28.12.2004 were signed and sent by the respondent to the fifth petitioner to USA. The fifth petitioner has also produced documents to show that the medical certificate and laboratory results dated 28.12.2004 were signed and sent by the respondent to the fifth petitioner to USA. It is quite obvious from the same that the respondent/complainant, not only had sexual intercourse with the fifth petitioner in the first week of October 2004 itself, but also was aware of the fact that the fifth petitioner became pregnant because of such sexual intercourse he had with her. 16. On 05.10.2004, the fifth petitioner was admitted in the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences for tooth extraction and the same is evidenced by the copies of the admission card and the bill dated 05.10.2004, produced along with petition. Therefore, it is quite evident that the respondent herein, after his marriage was fixed with the fifth petitioner, took her to Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences for tooth extraction on 05.10.2004 and at that point of time the respondent/complainant was working in the said institution. It is the clear case of the petitioners that the respondent had sexual intercourse with the fifth petitioner at Pondicherry at that point of time and that was the cause of her pregnancy. The same is also evidenced by the other documents viz., 1. Scan report issued by Sono Scan Centre, Pondicherry 2. Ultrasonogram report of Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, wherein the respondent was employed and the prescription of Dr(Mrs).A.Esther Ruby, an Obstetrician and Gynecologist 3. The prescription is dated 27.12.2004 and the Ultrasonogram prescription for Doppler test was dated 28.12.2004. In the scan report and the prescription for colour Doppler study contains a noting that the fifth petitioner Kalpanas last menstrual period was on 24.09.2004. The respondent himself has issued a certificate and sent it through e-mail to the effect that the fifth petitioner was his patient from 20.10.2004; that she was clinically diagnosed to be primigravid into her first trimester; that the next appointment for routine follow up action was on 08.02.2005 and that she was found to be clinically normal into her second trimester. The said certificate was issued on 10.03.2005. The said certificate was issued on 10.03.2005. A copy of the said document which is found at page 33 of the typed-set clearly shows that the respondent was very much aware that the fifth petitioner was carrying a child in the womb from October 2004 and she was in the second trimester of her pregnancy on 10.03.2005, when the said certificate was issued. In fact on 28.09.2004 itself, the fifth petitioner had undergone an investigation in the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, which shows that she was not pregnant at that point of time. The copies of the documents relating to the test conducted at Christian Medical College and Hospial, Vellore, are available at pages 34 and 35 of the typed-set of papers. In addition to that, other clinching materials are also available to show that the respondent was aware of the fact that the fifth petitioner was carrying a child from October 2004 and the child was born in June 2005. Those are the documents showing the e-mail communications between the fifth petitioner and the respondent. It shall be very useful to point out here that the respondent, in his compliant, has stated that he was not even aware of the birth of the child till December 2005. But in the e-mail dated 02.07.2005 itself, the fifth petitioner she had informed her ailment and the fact that her sister alone, who was also in USA, was taking care of her child. The said averment made by the respondent is falsified by the above said documents. 17. In addition to that, Yahoo e-mail sending the photos of the fifth petitioner with the child, photographs of the child on 01.08.2005 and 02.08.2005, yahoo e-mail dated 18.08.2005 sent by the respondent to the fifth petitioner enquiring about the well being of the child and e-mail sent by the respondent to the fifth petitioner giving instructions as to how to bring up the child and at what interval immunizations are to be done and the growth rate to be ensured, a copy of which is found at pages 52 and 53 of the typed-set of papers, will show that on 13.10.2005 itself such instructions were given by him to the fifth petitioner. All the above documents would go to show that the respondent has suppressed the fact of his knowledge of the pregnancy of the fifth petitioner three months prior to the date of marriage and the fact that he was the person by whom the fifth petitioner was made pregnant. It is also evident that he had also suppressed the fact that he himself, being a doctor, had given tips to the fifth petitioner right from the date of birth of the child as to how the child should be brought up. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the allegations made in the complaint that the birth of the child to the fifth petitioner was kept secret till December 2005 and only in December 2005, he came to know that the fifth petitioner gave birth to a child in USA is an utter falsehood. The immigration particulars of the fifth petitioner produced by the petitioners also shows that she had come to India on 29.09.2004 and left for USA on 10.10.2004. Entries are also found in the passport that she again visited India on 26.12.2004 and left for USA on 25.02.2005. The same coupled with the other documents discussed above, will clearly show that on her visit to India on 28.09.2004, she stayed here till 10.10.2004, during which period she had gone to Pondicherry along with respondent and at that point of time, she shared her bed with the respondent, which resulted in her pregnancy and that the same was confirmed subsequently, on her next visit to India in the month of December 2004. The confirmation of pregnancy was made to the knowledge of the respondent/complainant. Only thereafter, the marriage was solemnized on 01.01.2005 at Arulmighu Govindaraja Perumal Koil, Udayapatti, Salem. Suppressing the above said fact and with the intention of showing that the fifth petitioner gave birth to a child within five months from the date of marriage, the respondent has chosen to cite 31.01.2005 to be the date on which they got married and falsely contended that the fifth petitioner was with him only for a short period of six days in February 2005. It is also obvious that from the actual date of marriage i.e., 01.01.2005, till she left for USA on 25.02.2005, she was in the company of the respondent. It is also obvious that from the actual date of marriage i.e., 01.01.2005, till she left for USA on 25.02.2005, she was in the company of the respondent. Every fact has been suppressed and the complaint has been preferred with all concocted allegations and suppression of materials facts. Even the fact that the birth of the child was known to him soon after the child was born and the respondent himself enquired about the welfare of the child and gave tips for bringing up the child from August 2005 itself will falsify the contention of the respondent that only in December 2005, he came to know that the fifth petitioner gave birth to a child in June 2005. Therefore, this Court does have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the allegations of cheating on the alleged ground that the fifth petitioner became pregnant through some other person in USA is nothing but a rank falsehood. 18. It is the further allegation made by the respondent/ complainant, in his complaint, that at the time of negotiations for his marriage with the fifth petitioner, there was an understanding that the fifth petitioner should wind up her job in USA and come down to India to live with the respondent; that in the pretext of some difficulty in getting her resignation accepted by her employer, the petitioners made the respondent to part with a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-in two spells and also paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the urgent necessities of the parents of the fifth petitioner. It is the further allegation made by him in the complaint that as promised, the fifth petitioner did not wind up her job in USA and come down to India to live with the respondent and on the other hand, he came to understand that the petitioners played a fraud upon him and cheated him of a total sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. The above said allegation also has been, prima facie, demonstrated to be baseless and false. It is made clear by the petitioners that, at no point of time, the fifth petitioner expressed her intention to wind up her job in USA or to come back to India permanently. The above said allegation also has been, prima facie, demonstrated to be baseless and false. It is made clear by the petitioners that, at no point of time, the fifth petitioner expressed her intention to wind up her job in USA or to come back to India permanently. They have also made it clear that no promise was made to the respondent that the fifth petitioner would wind up her job in USA and come down to India to live with the respondent; that on the other hand, it was the respondent, who wanted to go over to USA under some pretext and that because of the failure of his hectic efforts to get US Visa, he has chosen to file the frivolous complaint with false and untenable allegations. In order to support his allegations that the fifth petitioner and her parents were very much interested in extracting money from the respondent/complainant, he has produced two documents as copies of e-mail sent by the fifth petitioner from USA included at page 15 of the typed-set of papers, the text of which reads as follows: - "Dear Karthik, Hope you are doing okay. Miss you a lot here. Was try to reach you so badly over the telephone it rings but u dont pick up. I even sent so many messages not a single reply. Just feeling really down and wanted to talk to you so badly. Wanted to hear your wonderful message about money etc. I am just trying to cope with my condition here. Really scared inside of whats going to happen. Would be feeling good atleast if you send money to me. Not able to sleep these days not knowing what your condition is and how you are doing there. I just want to be with you soon. The five days I spent with you in Jan is the best memorable days of my life. Take care Karthik. Bye Chellam" But the fifth petitioner has clearly demonstrated that the same was edited one and several portions have been omitted so as to make it appear that the fifth petitioner was interested in the respondents money. The unedited e-mail produced by the fifth petitioner is available at page 16, which reads as follows: "Dear Karthik, hope you are doing okay, miss you a lot here. The unedited e-mail produced by the fifth petitioner is available at page 16, which reads as follows: "Dear Karthik, hope you are doing okay, miss you a lot here. Was trying to reach you so badly over the telephone it rings but u dont pick up. I even sent so many messages not a single reply. Just feeling really down and wanted to talk to you so badly. Instead just heard your wonderful message about money etc. I am just trying to cope with my condition here. Really scared inside of whats going to happen. Would be feeling good atleast if you say hi to me and little one but its okay if this is what we mean to you. Not able to sleep these days not knowing what your condition is and how you are doing there. If ever anything were to happen to me please take all courage and be real happy in life karthik. I always wished the best for everyone even the day I met you first I only knew that life should turn out good for you in all aspects. I just want to be with you soon the ten days I spent with you in Jan is the best memorable days of my life. Me and little one long to be with you soon. I only pray for the best and hope god gives me the strength to be with all us when we are not together in the tough period and somehow help us meet again soon. I do not want to pain you anymore cause I am already feeling lost and down without you. I wanted to inform you first about our little ones birth but you are not willing to take our calls. Its okay karthik I do not know what your condition is there and how you are feeling too." A comparison of both will go to show that the e-mail projected by the respondent lacks coherence and is unnatural showing that the same is a mutated and edited version of the text that is found in page 16 of the typed-set of papers. 19. 19. The other documents found at pages 17 to 19 will show that the respondent himself sent money to the account of the fifth petitioner in the hope of getting a Visa to USA and going over there, as they would need the money even without being asked by the fifth petitioner. The fifth petitioner had requested the particulars of the bank account of the respondent to remit the money back to his account, which is evident from the said documents. There are also documents produced by the petitioners to show that twice he applied for USA Visa, which resulted in rejection of his application. There are also documents showing that he even wanted the fifth petitioner to get an invitation from one Dr.Weingeist for a conference in Ophthalmology in June 2005, so that he could get Visa and that the attempt made by the fifth petitioner to get such an invitation letter was not fruitful since she was informed that Dr Weingeist could not write a letter of invitation to the respondent as he was not an alumni and was not known to any of their faculty members. The said message was also passed on to the respondent. It is also obvious from the communications that, after marriage, the respondent took up a job in Bangladesh and from there also he applied for USA Visa unsuccessfully. It is also pertinent to note that there is no material to show that any amount was paid by the respondent to the petitioners 1 to 4 in India. On the other hand, there are materials to show that the respondent himself remitted thrice totaling a sum of US $ 15,886.31 and that the fifth petitioner was even ready to transfer the said amount to the account of the respondent as he could not get Visa to go to USA. 20. It is also evident from the documents produced by the petitioners that the fifth petitioner had informed the respondent that any amount credited to her account would result in a liability to her to pay tax. Even in the e-mail dated 17th June 2005, the fifth petitioner made it clear that she did not want the respondent to send any amount, as it was really dangerous and he might loose the money when sent from India and that she was liable to pay tax for any amount getting into her account. Even in the e-mail dated 17th June 2005, the fifth petitioner made it clear that she did not want the respondent to send any amount, as it was really dangerous and he might loose the money when sent from India and that she was liable to pay tax for any amount getting into her account. All the above said materials will go to show that it was the respondent who made hectic efforts to go to USA and join with his wife viz., the fifth petitioner, which proved to be a failure and at no point of time, there was any promise either on the part of the fifth petitioner or on the part of the other petitioners that the fifth petitioner would wind up her job in USA and come down to India to join the respondent. 21. It has also been made clear that no amount was paid as alleged by the respondent in his complaint to any one of the petitioners 1 to 4 to be sent to the fifth petitioner and no amount was sent by them to the fifth petitioner and on the other hand, it was the respondent who directly sent a total amount of US $ 15,886.31 to the account of the fifth petitioner. It is also evident that without there being any demand by the respondent, the fifth petitioner came forward to send back the amount to the respondent, for which she asked for the bank details of the respondent. Suppressing all the above said material facts and making false and untenable allegations, the respondent has filed the compliant alleging cheating on the part of the petitioners. No prima facie case for cheating has been made out. 22. The complaint also refers to Section 406 I.P.C, as one of the penal provisions under which the alleged act of the petitioners is punishable. All the observations made in respect of the offence of cheating will mutatis mutandis apply to the allegation of breach of trust. Similarly, there is no concrete allegation regarding criminal intimidation attracting Section 506 of IPC either part (i) or part (ii). Though the complaint is titled as complaint under Section 406, 506(ii) and 420 IPC, in the prayer portion, 506(ii) IPC has been omitted and instead 120-B IPC has been added. Similarly, there is no concrete allegation regarding criminal intimidation attracting Section 506 of IPC either part (i) or part (ii). Though the complaint is titled as complaint under Section 406, 506(ii) and 420 IPC, in the prayer portion, 506(ii) IPC has been omitted and instead 120-B IPC has been added. All the observations made regarding other offences are also equally applicable to the allegations regarding the offence under Section 120-B IPC. 23. Before parting with the case, this Court makes it clear that this Court had to traverse the facts and the documents produced by the petitioners also, since the case of the petitioners is that the complaint itself is a gross abuse of process of Court. Normally, the High Court dealing with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C will not consider the prima facie nature of the complaint in the light of the documents produced by the accused/petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But in exceptional cases, when abuse of process of Court is pleaded and the documents relied on are clinching capable of establishing abuse of process of Court without any need for production of further materials and capable of showing that the prosecution of the case will be an exercise in futility, the Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In this case, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, this Court feels it necessary to exercise the inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint of the respondent. 24. For all the reasons sated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the second ground on which the criminal proceedings initiated is sought to be quashed are well founded and that the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C.No.204 of 2006 is liable to be set aside to prevent abuse of process of Court and ensuring ends of justice. 25. In the result, this Criminal original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C.No.204 of 2006 against the petitioners herein on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore is quashed.