VADIVEL Vs. V D KARTHIKEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 1 to 5 have been arraigned as A1 to A5 in the Criminal case instituted on a private complaint by the respondent on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Vellore in C.C. No. 204 of 2006. Fifth Petitioner Kalpana (A5) is the wife of the respondent Dr. V.D. Karthikeyan/the complainant. THE petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents and the petitioners 3 and 4 are respectively brother and sister of the fifth petitioner/fifth accused. THEy have approached this Court by way of the pres- entCrl. O.P.No. 2358 of 2007 forquashingthe criminal proceedings initiated on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Vellore in C.C. No. 204 of 2006 on the private complaint of the respondent herein presented under Section 200 Cr.P.C alleging commission of offences by the petitioners 1 to 5 punishable under Sections 406, 506(H) and 420 IPC.

(2.) IN the said complaint, the respondent has made the following allegations:

(3.) BESIDES refuting the allegations made in the complaint, the fifth petitioner herein, in the affidavit, has also made the following averments: (i) It is an utter false to state that the fifth petitioner was impregnated through someone in USA and that the respondent is not the father of the male child born to her in June 2005. On the other hand, during the month of March 2004 an advertisement had been given in the tamil matrimoni.com on behalf of the fifth petitioner. The respondent, who came across the advertisement, responded to the same and sent messages on 14.5.2004 through e-mail, when the fifth petitioner was in USA. There were discussions between the first petitioner (father of the fifth petitioner) and the father of the respondent for having the marriage celebrated at the end of June 2004. However, the fifth petitioner could come to Chennai only on 29.9.2004 from USA and the respondent received her at the airport. On 30.9.2004 respondent took the fifth petitioner to Vellore, where the parents of the respondent were living and thereafter on 2.10.2004, he took her to Pondicherry where the respondent was employed at that point of time. Again on 5.10.2004, the respondent took the fifth petitioner to Pondicherry for her tooth extraction. It was the respondent who made payment to the hospital. During the visits of the fifth petitioner along with the respondent to Pondicherry, they stayed in the quarters of the respondent and since the marriage between them was confirmed not only by them but also by their parents and the respondent persuaded the fifth petitioner to have sex with him, unable to resist his persistent demand, the fifth petitioner had sexual intercourse with the respondent several times during October 2004. Thereafter, on 6.10.2004, the fifth petitioner left for USA. (ii) Again on 26.12.2004, the fifth petitioner returned from USA and on the very next day viz., on 27.12.2004,ihe respondent took her to Pondicherry for Consultation with Obstetrician and Gynaecologist. Her pregnancy was confirmed after various tests in the Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, where the respondent was employed at that point of time. The respondent was very much aware that the fifth petitioner was pregnant even before the solemnization of marriage and it was the respondent who caused that pregnancy. Knowing the said facts fully well, he married the fifth petitioner and the marriage was solemnized in Arulmighu Govindaraja Perumal Koil, Udayapatti, Salem on 1.1.2005. From 1.1.2005 to 28.1.2005, both of them stayed at Pondicherry. The marriage was once again solemnized at Tirupati on 31.1.2005 as per the desire of the parents of the respondent. On 30.1.2005 itself, the respondent resigned his job at Pondicherry and on 5.2.2005, the couple vacated the hospital quarters, came down to Chennai and thereafter were staying in the house of the parents of the fifth petitioner at Chennai till 25.2.2005, the date on which the fifth petitioner left for USA. (iii) The respondent obtained passport on 4.2.2005 and made attempts to obtain USA Visa on several occasions. He even pestered the fifth petitioner to obtain invitation for him from organizers of National Conference in USA. Meanwhile on 29.9.2005, he went to Bangladesh and secured a job in Bangladesh. During his stay in Bangladesh, he remitted a total sum of US 15,886.31 on three spells, trite particulars of which are as follows: 27.6.2005 -US$4,441.00 29.8.2005 -US$ 1,465.31 30.9.2005 -US$9,980.00 Total -US$ 15,886.31 All the said remittances were made from Bangladesh to the Bank account of the fifth petitioner in the hope of getting a Visa for USA so that the respondent and the fifth petitioner could settle in USA. At no point of time, the respondent insisted upon that the fifth petitioner should quit her job and return to India. The laboratory results dated 28.12.2004 and the medical certificate were forwarded by the respondent to the fifth petitioner to USA on 12.3.2005. The said documents would confirm beyond doubt that the fifth petitioner was pregnant during December 2004. Various materials sent by the respondent will reveal that he was aware of not only the fifth petitioner's pregnancy, but also the delivery of a male baby and that he had shown affection towards that baby and was very much concerned with the welfare of the baby also. The averments contrary to the above facts made by the respondent in his complaint are false.