Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 334 (MAD)

Andathal v. Parameswari

2015-01-21

C.T.SELVAM

body2015
Judgment 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to C.C.No.97 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul and to quash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. 3. Petitioners/A2 to A6 in case pending trial in C.C.No.97 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul seek quashing of proceedings against them. Such is a case arising out of a private complaint preferred by the wife of the first accused complaining of a marriage entered into between the first accused and the sixth accused and alleging commission of offence under Sections 494, 120-B and 108 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that an order of maintenance has been passed pursuant to a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. preferred by the respondent, in M.C.No.19 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul, wherein respondent claimed maintenance both for herself and her son, on the assertion that she was the wife of the first accused. The first accused has preferred a suit in O.S.No.180 of 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul, seeking a declaration to the effect that the respondent is not his wife and the boy born to her was not his son. The sixth accused is the legally wedded wife of the first accused and they have three children. Taking advantage of an erroneous order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent, who earlier prosecuted the first accused for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. has presently preferred a false complaint roping in these petitioners/accused. The case against the first accused for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. was tried in C.C.No.9 of 2000 by learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul, who sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment. There against, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2000 before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, which had been allowed. Thereafter, the respondent has preferred the present complaint, merely to harass the petitioners. 5. We have required counsel to produce and perused the judgment of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.413 of 2005 dated 14.09.2009. Thereafter, the respondent has preferred the present complaint, merely to harass the petitioners. 5. We have required counsel to produce and perused the judgment of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.413 of 2005 dated 14.09.2009. Under such judgment, the sons of the 6th accused have obtained declaration and injunction against their father, the first accused and the son of the defacto complainant represented by his mother and natural guardian, the defacto complainant. Their claim has been upheld based on a settlement effected by the first accused in the year 1997. It is evident that the 6th accused and the defacto complainant both claim to be wives of the first accused. In view of the rival contentions there would be no occasion presently to prosecute the case in C.C.No.97 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. 6. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.97 of 2008, pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul are quashed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed.