Jeyanthi v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 15.12.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and Crl.M.P. Nos.6074 & 6075 of 2021 Crl.O.P. No.15271 of 2020 Jeyanthi ... Petitioner -vs1.The Inspector of Police, W-15, All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai 600 013.
2.Muthukumaran 3.Mr.Radhikaselvi 4.Thangapushpam 5.Usha
...Respondents
Page No.1/14
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to transfer C.C. No.2309 of 2019 from the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court to file of any other Judicial Magistrate court at Tirunelveli District. Crl.O.P. No.9833 of 2021 1.Radhika Selvi 2.Thanga Pushpam ... Petitioners -vs1.The State represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police, W-15, All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013.
2.K.Jeyanthi
...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of final report filed in C.C. No.2309 of 2019 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioners : No Appearance in Crl.O.P. No.15271 of 2020 Mr.M.Ramamoorthy for Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi in Crl.O.P. No.9833 of 2021 Page No.2/14
For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor, for R1 in both Crl.O.Ps.
No Appearance for R2 to R5 in Crl.O.P. No.15271 of 2020 No Appearance for R2 in Crl.O.P. No.9833 of 2021 ----------- COMMON
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. These two petitions, one is filed to quash the case against A2 and A3 and another is filed to transfer the trial from XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, arising out of fact that one Muthukumaran husband of the defacto complainant Jeyanthi who happened to be the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.15271 of 2020 seeking transfer of case from the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court to file of any other Judicial Magistrate Court at Tirunelveli District.
Page No.3/14
3. The sum and substance of defacto complainant Jeyanthi's complaint taken on file for investigation on 28.03.2019 by the All Women Police Station, Royapuram in Crime No. 04 of 2019 is that, the said Muthukumaran is already a married man with one Kanchana Devi, suppressing the facts that the marriage in subsistence through his sister and mother had represented her with Muthukumaran as legally divorced from Kanchan Devi, but having an affair with one Usha, in order to bring him to normal and decent life, they want the hands of the defacto complainant.
4. After much preparation by the second and third accused, the defacto complainant Jeyanthi has consented for the marriage. The marriage was solemnized on 11.07.2018 at Thiruchendur Murugan Temple. Since even after marriage, there was threatening call from the said Usha, the first petitioner herein Radhika Selvi, who was former member of Parliament and Minister of State, had called the said Usha and warned her not to interfere with the life of her brother and the defacto Page No.4/14
complainant. Despite that, the said threat continues. Radhika Selvi and her mother who are the petitioners herein has forced the defacto complainant to leave the matrimonial home. Hence, this complaint against Muthukumaran, Radhikaselvi, Sister of A1 and Thangapushpam, mother of A1 and Usha, the alleged paramour of A1.
5. The substance of the complaint is inducing the defacto complainant to marriage the first accused by showing fake divorce documents and driving her away from the matrimonial home. After completion of investigation final report filed on 05.11.2019, for alleged offence under Section 417, 420 r/w 495, 506(i) IPC. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No.9833 of 2021, who are A2 and A3, submitted that the trial Court on perusing the records had dropped charge under Section 495 IPC and now the petitioners stand charge for offence under Sections 417, 420, 506(i) r/w 109 IPC. Page No.5/14
6. Contending that the deviation and embellishments in the FIR, Section 161 Cr.P.C Statements and the final report coupled with the facts that the Investigation Officer has found fit that there is no offence to attract Section 495 IPC is made out. The only incriminating material against these two petitioners is that the false representation about the first marriage with Kanchana Devi, showing fake divorce decree. To substantiate this, the Investigation Officer has not recovered the said fake divorce decree and as far as the offence under Sections 417 & 420 IPC predominantly, relates to property and in this case admittedly, there is no involvement of any tangible property.
7. Further the learned counsel submitted that the alleged threat is also appears to be made by the first petitioner to said Usha, who was allegedly interfering the life of the defacto complainant and Muthukumaran. The transfer petition filed by the defacto complainant which is taken on file in Crl.O.P. No.15271 of 2020, is on the ground that the first accused Muthukumaran, practicing Advocate at Chennai, tried Page No.6/14
to interfere the process and being a lady and resident of Thirunelveli District, she apprehends that she may not be able to get justice and difficult to undertake all the way from Thirunelveli to Chennai to attend each and every hearing.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State submitted that the factum of marriage with the defacto complainant, with a knowledge and aid of these petitioners is proved through evidence collected and on the date of marriage, the first accused Muthukumaran was a married man and the first marriage was in subsistence. Inducement and cheating need not be with regard to tangible property alone, but any damage to the person, property, mind or repute will also attract offence under Section 420 IPC and these petitioners are arrayed as accused for abetting and aiding the prime accused Muthukumaran to commit the offence of cheating the defacto complainant by marrying her suppressing the subsistence of the first marriage. Page No.7/14
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court of the following subsequent event in this case. The first wife, Kanchana Devi had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No.23979 of 2018. In a Writ Petition filed by Kanchana Devi for Mandamus, this Court suo motu by invoking power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, Section 151 Cr.P.C and Section 482 Cr.P.C had withdrawn HMOP No.4011 of 2018 on the file of the V Additonal Family Court, Chennai and has granted a decree of divorce for dissolving the marriage between Kanchana Devi and Muthukumaran held on 22.04.2015 and also quashed the criminal complaint initiated by Jeyanthi, the present defacto complainant pending on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town in C.C. No.956 of 2019.
10. On the perusal of the substance of charge in C.C. No.956 of 2019, this Court finds that it is against Muthukumaran initiated by Kanchana Devi. The second subsequent event referred by the learned counsel, the defacto complainant Jeyanthi filed HMOP No.47 of 2022 Page No.8/14
seeking for restitution of conjugal rights after the annulment of the earlier marriage of Muthukumaran with Kanchana Devi.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights contains all act of cruelty alleged earlier and therefore, there cannot be any prosecution against these two petitioners either for Sections 417, 420 and 506(i) r/w 109 IPC.
12. In support of his submission, the learned counsel rely upon the following two judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Kumar vs. Julmidevi reported in (2010) 4 SCC 476 and Dipika Shukla vs. Ashis Shukla (2021 (4) M.P.L.J.).
13. On hearing the learned counsel and perusing the records, this Court finds that the undisputed facts in this case, as on the date of registering the complaint is that the defacto complainant Jeyanthi been induced to give consent for the marriage with Muthukumaran. The Page No.9/14
petitioners 2 and 3 are none other than sister and mother of Muthukumaran, who are well aware of the subsistence of the first marriage with Kanchana Devi solemnised on 22.04.2015. Before the marriage with the defacto complainant Jeyanthi, Muthukumaran had also been in affair with one Usha who is the 4th accused in this case.
14. As per the complaint and final report, the first marriage not only been suppressed but the defacto complainant been mis-led by showing some fake documents as if the marriage got dissolved. No doubt that document not been recovered but such mis-representation to deceive the defacto complainant dishonestly with intention to cheat, this is a matter for trial. The subsequent event of dissolution of marriage by intervention of the High Court exercising all its inherent power and calling the records from the Family Court and dissolve the marriage in a Writ Petition will no way dilute the consequence and offence alleged to have been committed.
Page No.10/14
15. The two judgements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in respect of alleged cruelty by the spouse and later some of the spouse who had made the allegation of cruelty decided to joint the husband and seeking restitution of conjugal right. In this case, the defacto complainant had been allegedly cheated by mis-representation, had come forward to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, because the legal impediment to get legalised such marriage now been removed, due to dissolution of marriage of Muthukumaran with Kanchana Devi. This conduct or the subsequent attempt of the defacto complainant to regularise her marriage seeking restitution of conjugal rights cannot be a tool for in the hands of perpetrator of crime, escaping from the clutches of law.
16. Therefore, this Court finds that it is not a case where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised to quash the case on the ground, no criminality is made out or on any other ground, when there is prima facie material for framing charges and to try. These petitioners are Page No.11/14
bound to undergo the process of trial and the same cannot be shortcircuited. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition filed to quash the case is dismissed.
17. In respect of the transfer petition, this Court finds that the defacto complainant had all along been agitating her case, by filing the complaint before the All Women Police Station, Royapuram and her reason for transfer also does not appears to be acceptable. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is also dismissed. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible and complete it within a reasonable time, taking note of the fact that the matter is pending for more than four years. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
15.12.2023 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No rkp Page No.12/14
To
1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, W-15, All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai 600 013.
3.Assistant Commissioner of Police, W-15, All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013.
Page No.13/14
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rkp and Crl.M.P. Nos.6074 & 6075 of 2021 15.12.2023 Page No.14/14