S. NATARAJAN Vs. SHELLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 10375 of 1989 on the file of the XVT1 Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. Past prosecution has been initiated by the respondent by filing a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 493, 494, 495 and 496 I.P.C. The respondent has filed the complaint as an aggrieved person, coining within the fold of Section 198 Cr. P.C.

(2.) THE private complaint was filed before the Court below on 18 -7 -1989 on which date, the sworn statement of the respondent was recorded. For examination of other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the proceedings were adjourned, on 18 -7 -1989 to 22 -7 -1989. However, it is seen from the record's that the father of the respondent, R. Subraimniam, was examined by the Court below on 29 -7 -1989 and the matter was posted for orders on 4 -8 -1989. On 4 -8 -1989 the trial Magistrate took the complaint on file for offences under Sections 493, 494, 495 and 496 I.P.C. and directed issue of process to the petitioner, under Section 204 Cr. P.C., returnable on 19 -8 -1989. Meanwhile, the petitioner preferred this petition (Crl. M.P. No. 13806 of 1989) on the, file of this Court, to quash the proceedings, pending against him in the Court below, as one without jurisdiction and an abuse of process of Court. The proceedings in the Court below, were also stayed by this Court, by the order made in Cri. M.P. No. 13807 of 1989, filed along with the main petition, on the same date.

(3.) EVEN initially it will be better to narrate, in brief, the allegations made by the respondent, in the private complaint filed before the lower Court. The respondent was a student in Holly Angels Convent, T. Nagar, Madras -17, from LK.G to XI Standard One Shanthi, the daughter of the sister of the petitioner, was also studying in the same school. The petitioner used to drop Shanthi at the school daily and, take her back after school hours. The respondent was aged about 16 years then without worldly knowledge. The petitioner, who became friendly with the respondent, represented to the latter, that he was a partner in Sundaram Stores, General Merchants, and that he was a Bachelor, enormously rich, and was anxious to marry the respondent and induced her to believe that such a marriage would be very beneficial to her. The respondent was thereby induced to believe that the representations of the petitioner were true. It appears from the averments made in the complaint, that the petitioner instructed the respondent not to have any discussion with others inclusive of Shanthi about all that he had stated to her and promised very happy future to the respondent, in case she married him. The petitioner and the respondent used to meet quite often, by prior arrangement at places selected by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner never informed her that he was already married and that his wife was alive. In pursuance of his representations, the petitioner further insisted, that in order to overcome the protests of the parents of the respondent, they should marry secretly and as if in a stance, the respondent totally believed the petitioner and did whatever he instructed her to do.