UTHIRAPATHY Vs. MALLIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused by name Uthirapathy being unsuccessful before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karaikal in Crl.M.P. No.763 of 1994 in C.C. No.150 of 1993, dated 3.11.1994, in his attempt to get him discharged, has come forward with this revision, challenging the propriety and legality of the said impugned order.

(2.) THE petition herein, by name, Uthirapathy is the father of the complainant/respondent, by name, Malliga, and she is his daughter through his first wife, by name, Dhanalakshmi. It is alleged that during the subsistence of marriage with the said Dhanalakshmi, the petitioner herein has contracted a second marriage with one Parvathy and as such, he has committed an offence under Sec.494, Indian Penal Code and a complaint was lodged by the respondent herein under Sec.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court below. She had to file the complaint as her mother was said to have been not alright and she was physically ailing and so, she had filed the complaint on behalf of her mother on 26.5.1993. After having satisfied with the existence of the grounds, by taking the sworn statement of the complainant, the complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate and processes were issued. THE petitioner along with the so-called second wife entered appearance on 17.11.1993 and the copies of the documents were served upon them. THE case was numbered as C.C. No. 150 of 1993. Before the commencement of the trial, a petition under Sec.245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed praying for the discharge of the accused on the ground that the* respondent has no legal competency to file the complaint against the petitioners for the offence under Sec.494 of Indian Penal Code, besides the question of jurisdiction, and it was resisted by and on behalf of the respondent. After hearing both the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate elaborately discussed the matter, but, however, declined to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and consequently dismissed the petition filed for discharge by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved at this, the accused before the trial court, has Come forward with this revision challenging the impugned order above referred to.

(3.) THE only contention which the Bar for the revision petitioner has dealt with before me is on the basis of Sec. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by stating that without getting a prior permission or sanction of the court, the daughter of the accused, for the alleged offence, is not competent to file a private complaint or initiate any legal proceedings in a court of law as Sec. 198 of the Code provides a total bar for that. In other respects, the Bar for the revision petitioner may not have any serious grievance. Admittedly, the relationship between the first petitioner before the trial court and the respondent is not disputed and the wife of the first accused, by name, Dhanalakshmi is still alive and she has not lodged, nor filed any complaint before any police or court and it is her daughter, the respondent herein who has moved the trial court by filing a private complaint under Sec.200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and given her sworn statement with a view to satisfy the learned trial Magistrate with the existence of the prima facie case, followed by the issuance of processes and appearance of the accused before the trial court. It seems that the accused have received the copies of all the documents relied on by the complainant and that the case was posted for the commencement of trial. It was, at this stage, an attempt to seek the total discharge was made by filing a petition under Sec.245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.