V D GRAHALAKSHMI Vs. NARAYANAN VENUPRASAD MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 2293 of 2008 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are as follows:- The petitioner was married to one Mr. T. Prasanth, a Cine Actor, on 01.09.2005 at Chennai and out of the said wedlock, she has given birth to a male child on 31.07.2006. Subsequently, due to some matrimonial dispute, they have been living apart. While so, her husband Mr. T. Prasanth filed F.C.O.P. No. 1992 of 2007 before the Family Court at Chennai against the petitioner herein for grant of a decree of nullity of the said marriage. In the said petition, her husband Mr. T. Prasanth had averred that the petitioner was already married to the respondent herein on 30.11.1998 itself and the said marriage was also duly registered at the office of the Marriage Registrar, Chennai Central on 30.12.1998. But, according to the petitioner, there was no such marriage between her and the respondent on 30.11.1998 and therefore the above averment in the F.C.O.P. No. 1992 of 2007 filed by her husband Mr. T. Prasanth was a shocking information to her. Therefore, according to her, she approached the Registrar and collected material records and from that she came to know that the respondent had produced a different woman under the name and style of D. Grahalakshmi and got the marriage registered as though there was a marriage on 30.11.1998 between the petitioner and the respondent. The said act of the respondent, according to the petitioner, amounts to offences of forgery, cheating by impersonation etc., The complainant further alleges that for registering the said marriage, the respondent had induced a lady not known to the complainant to impersonate the petitioner before the Marriage Registrar. It is further alleged that the respondent had fabricated false and bogus invitation cards, used the same before the Registrar and also falsely declared before the Marriage Registrar that there was marriage between the petitioner and the accused as if it was performed by a prokit by name Mr. Murali Iyer. It is further stated that the marriage between her and Mr. T. Prasanth was the only marriage and there was no marriage at all between her and the respondent. With the above allegations, the private complaint was filed.

(3.) On taking cognizance of the offences stated in the complaint, the learned Magistrate on 29.05.2008 recorded the statement of the petitioner as required under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel on record for the petitioner declared that no further witness, for the present, was to be examined. Based on the said statement made by the learned Counsel, the learned Magistrate perused the materials on record and passed final order on 13.06.2008 thereby dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is the said order, which is under challenge in this revision.