NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the complainant in a private complaint filed against the respondent/accused alleging offences punishable under Secs. 376 and 406 I.P.C. The complainant was married by one Bhaskaran Nair in the year 1980. In that relationship a son was born to them. Bhaskaran Nair died in 1984. The complainant was working in a foreign country (Oman). While she was working there the accused approached her and expressed his willingness to marry her. Both of them decided to marry after they reached their native place. It is stated that on 22-08-2005 while the complainant was staying at the residence of her elder sister the accused reached there and discussed about the marriage and they agreed to have the marriage solemnized as per the Hindu religious rites at Guruvayoor Temple on the next day itself. On the day of discussion, the accused stayed in the house of the complainant's sister. The complainant was also staying in that house on that day. It is alleged that on that night the accused had sexual intercourse with her repeating his promise of marriage. On the next day their marriage was conducted at Guruvayoor Temple.

(2.) It is also her case that thereafter both of them left for Oman and lived there as husband and wife for about 8 years. Her further allegation is that during that period the accused had misappropriated 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also committed criminal breach of trust in respect of about 10 lakhs of rupees. According to her, thereafter he came back to her native place in July 2013. Though she tried to contact the accused she could not contact him. Later, she could realise that the accused was a married man having wife and two grown up children. Thus, the complainant contends that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 376 and 406 IPC stating that her consent was obtained by misconception or by false promise. This in short is the gist of the complainant's case.

(3.) This complaint, C.M.P. 9000/2013, was filed on 22-11-2013, admittedly after about 8 years of the alleged incident. It is true, usually in such cases the complaint is forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C so as to avoid the time of the court being wasted for conducting enquiry. But in the instant case the learned Magistrate has chosen not to forward the complaint to the police under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. but proceeded to conduct enquiry in the matter as provided under Sec. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. That order is challenged in this petition.