S SURESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to call for the records in connection with F. I. R. No. 212 of 2007 on the file of Kadathur Police, Station, Dharmapuri District, and to quash the same.

(2.) DE facto complainant is a married woman, who has got twin boys, aged three years, and a daughter. She is living away from her husband, in view of certain misunderstandings. Sons are with her husband, while she is maintaining the daughter. She is working as a teacher in panchayat Union Elementary School in Veppilaipatti village. She used to attend the teachers' meeting every month in thalanattam Panchayat Union Middle School. The accused, who too is a teacher in Panchayat Union Elementary School in nattamedu, also used to participate in the said meetings. He voluntarily began to get familiarity with her. While he is a brahmin, she belongs to Adi-dravidar community. She had informed him about her family circumstances. He represented that he was a bachelor and made her to believe that he would marry her, thereby asking her to come with him to some places. But, since she refused, both of them used to go to house No. 875 in Vennampatti Housing Board and have carnal intercourse on several occasions from March,2007. On 14. 04. 2007, he took her to Mohana Lodge, Krishnagiri, stayed there and had coitus with her. They vacated the room in the evening of 15. 04. 2007. Because of him, she is now pregnant by two-and-a-half months. The accused refused to marry her and disconnected her relationship. Therefore, a case has been registered in Crime No. 212 of 2007 on the file of respondent police for the offences under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that for employing Section 376 IPC, the complaint does not bear any allegations and as per the situation of the de facto complainant, namely, her avocation and status i. e. , to say, she was a married woman, living with children, by no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that she was sexually exploited by the accused forcibly. It is his further contention that none of the ingredients enumerated in Section 375 IPC would apply to the facts of the present case and the alleged offence under section 376 did not exist. It is also his argument that the de facto complainant gave her free consent for intercourse as per her allegation and there was no obnoxious intention on the part of the accused to spoil her life and, therefore, no offence could be made out under Section 376 IPC.