Shakila Banu v. D.Jaffer Sherif
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 18..11..2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Original Petition No.22408 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.10411 of 2016 1.Shakila Banu 2.Zaheer Hussan 3.Shanma Begum ... Petitioners -VersusD.Jaffer Sherif ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in C.C.NO.133 of 2016* on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem and to quash the same.
*Amended as per the order of this court dated 31.01.2017 made in Crl.M.P.No.1397 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran For Respondent : Ms.G.Vrindha [Legal Aid Counsel]
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.133 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem.
2. The respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner is the brother and the 3rd petitioner is the mother of the petitioner. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that the petitioner was actually 37 years old, but, misrepresenting as if she was 26 years old, she was given in marriage to the respondent. After the marriage, the respondent came to know from the school transfer certificate obtained through Right to Information Act, that the 1st petitioner was 37 years old and the petitioners cheated him. Therefore, the respondent made a complaint for alleged offence under Sections 120(B), 415, 417 and 420 of IPC
and the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the same in C.C.No.133 of 2016 and issued process. It is this criminal proceedings which the petitioners now seek to quash.
3. Even though notice was served on the respondent and his name had also been printed in the cause list, neither he was present nor represented by any counsel on the previous hearings and therefore, this court had no other option except to appoint Ms.G.Vrindha, as legal aid counsel to represent on behalf of the respondent.
4. Today, this court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.
5. The only allegation made against the petitioners is that they had misrepresented the age of the 1st petitioner in order to give her in marriage to him and made the respondent to believe that the 1st petitioner was 26 years old. But, at the time of marriage, the 1st petitioner was actually 37 years old which, he respondent came to know only after the marriage, when he had manged to obtained a copy of the school transfer certificate of the 1st petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, according to the respondent, he had been cheated by the petitioners.
6. On a careful perusal of the available records, this court is of the view that there is no material available to show that the petitioners misrepresented to the respondent that the 1st petitioner was 26 years old at the time of marriage. The respondent had not produced any evidence to prima facie establish the actual age of the 1st petitioner and the present private complaint was laid only based on an information said to have obtained by the respondent under the Right to Information Act. But there is no material to show that petitioners have suppressed the same and falsely represented that she was 26 years old.
In such circumstances, this court is of the view that the allegations made in the complaint are not prima facie sufficient to constitute offence of criminal conspiracy and cheating and therefore, this court is of the view that in the absence of any prima facie materials to show that the petitioners conspired together to cheat the respondent and cheated him, no useful purpose would be served if the criminal prosecution is allowed to be continued against the petitioners and it would only amount to abuse of process of law.
7. For the reasons discussed above, the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners on a private complaint by the respondent is liable to be quashed in its entirety.
In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.133 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem, is quashed in its entirety. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kmk To The Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem, Salem District. +1cc to Mr. S.Sugendran, Advocate, S.R.No.60088 Crl.O.P.No. 22408 of 2016 PMK(CO) CT 02/12/2021