APPAIYAM Vs. R KALAICHELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.O.P. No. 777 of 2008 has been filed by 11 persons who have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 13 in C.C. No. 301 of 2007, which is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. Crl.O.P. No. 36039 of 2007 has been filed by the persons, who have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 7 and 8 in the above said calendar case. The said calendar case has been instituted on a private complaint preferred by R. Kalaichelvi, who is the respondent in both the petitions, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC by the first accused and by the other accused an offence under section 494 r/w.109 IPC. The said complaint was preferred by the respondent Kalaichelvi before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, examined the complainant and two more witnesses produced by the complainant on oath and after considering the contents of the complaint, the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded on oath, the learned Judicial Magistrate formed an opinion that the said case was not a case in which it could be said that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding further. Accordingly the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the issuance of process under Section 203 r/w. 204 Cr.P.C. After being served with process, the petitioners in both the petitions, have come forward with the present petitions invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the complaint should be quashed on various grounds set out in the grounds incorporated in the petition.

(2.) The submissions made by Mr. Rubert J. Barnabas, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 777 of 2008 and by Mr. A.S. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 36039 of 2007 and also the arguments advanced by Mr. I.C. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The petitions and the records were also perused.

(3.) Admittedly, the respondent Kalaichelvi is the wife of Ramesh, the first petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 777 of 2008. Due to some misunderstanding between the respondent and her husband Ramesh, the said Ramesh filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No. 701 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore in the month of October 2005 alleging mental cruelty and harassment leading to irretrievable break down of the marriage. The complaint by the respondent came to be filed on 23.12.2005. It is quite obvious and not in dispute that the complaint came to be filed only after the filing of the H.M.O.P. for divorce. Apart from the common ground raised on behalf of all petitioners in both the petitions, the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 36039 of 2007, who have been arraigned as Accused Nos. 7 and 8, have also chosen to contend that they have nothing do with the alleged second marriage contracted by Ramesh, who has been shown as the first accused and they have been projected only as persons who attended the marriage. According to the submissions made by the learned counsel, so far as the petitioners in Crl.O.P. No. 36039 of 2007 are concerned, necessary averments against them attracting the penal provision 494 r/w 109 IPC have not been made against them.