S.THASLIMA FARVIN Vs. A.R.MARIYAMBEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the case in S.T.C.No.501 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Panruti, Cuddalore, this criminal original petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are accused in S.T.C.No.501 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Panruti. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C for the offences under Ss. 211 r/w 120(b) IPC. He further submitted that the first petitioner married one A.R.Salaudeen Abdul Razhak on 19/4/2015. After marriage, the first petitioner went to Dubai along with her husband and her mother-in-law. Thereafter, her husband and mother-in-law demanded for a Talaq to give the passport of the first petitioner. Then, the first petitioner's husband gave three Talaq. Thereafter, the first petitioner lodged a police complaint before the All Women Police Station, on 5/1/2017. Further, in pursuance of this Court direction in Crl.O.P.No.4601 of 2018, All Women Police Panruti registered a case against the respondent/ complainant and 7 other accused persons in Crime No.6 of 2018 for the offences under Ss. 406, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and under Sec. 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 on 16/3/2018. After investigation, final report has been filed in C.C.No.619 of 2019, which was quashed by the Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.103 of 2021 dtd. 3/2/2021. Thereafter, they are living separately. After quashing C.C.No.619 of 2019, the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint for the offences under Ss. 211 r/w 120 (b) IPC against the petitioners.

(3.) Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ss. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C would be applicable to the fact of this case. It is a proceedings of the Court. Therefore, the offence under Sec. 211 IPC must be regarded as one committed in relation to those proceedings in view of the bar under Sec. 195 Cr.P.C., the private complaint would not be taken into cognizance which is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. To support of his argument, he relied the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Brij Lal Palta reported in AIR 1969 SC 355 and in Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 91.