ACHAR MNA Vs. D L RAJAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are directed against the ord?r of the Metropolitan Magistrate, II Court, Bangalore, in a case under Ss.419 and 420 read with S.114 of the IPC, discharging the accused of these offences.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was, that during Novr 1973 the accused approached, the petitioner MNA. Achar and made him to believe that the first accused Dr.D.L.Rajagopal was a bachelor and available for marriage with the Daughter of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner end his daughter CW 5 consented to the marriage which took place at Srirangam on 30-11-1973. The other four accused A-2 to A-5 actually partioipated in the marriage. They had also negotiated for the same and according to the petitioner abetted in the offences committed by Dr.D.L.Rajagopal the first accused. Subseauentlv, the petitioner-complainant and his daughter learnt that A-1 was alreadv married to one Kusumavati CW.6 and the said marriage was pcrformed at Tirupati. It was stated that A-1 committed the offence of cheating by personation and was liable to be punished under S.419 of the IPC. At the same time he fraudulently and dishonestly induced the petitioner-complainant and his daughter to perform the marriage of A-1 with the daughter CW.5 and therebv caused damage of tje body mind and ronutation of the father and of the body, mind and renutation of the girl CW R. Therebv A-1 is stated to habe committed the offence of cheating as defined in S.415 and Since he dishonestly induced the petitioner-complaiant to deliver a property. he is also liable for punishment for the offence under S.420 of the IPC. With these allegations made in the police complaint, some investigation was made and finally the police submitted a challan against A-1 and the other four accused persons under Ss.419 and 420 read with S.114 of the IPC.

(3.) The learned Magistrate however considered that the charges made Out were groundless and hence he chose to discharge these accused under S.230 CrlPC. Poth the State as well as the petitioner-complainant have felt aggrieved of that decision and have preferred the two present criminal petitions.