JAYAKUMARI Vs. K VENUGOPALRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision petition has been filed to issue direction forbearing the first and second respondents from proceeding with the enquiry in C.A.No.44 and 50 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, assisted by the third respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts are as under:THE Revision petitioner herein has in-itially filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.4379 of 2008, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein and also the State Government from proceeding with the enquiry in C.A.No.44 and 50 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, assisted by the third respondent herein ap-pearing on behalf of the first and second re-spondents herein.

(3.) THE case of the Revision petitioner is that the first respondent herein colluded with the second respondent and perpetrated vari-ous offences against her which includes ab-duction of her family members and extortion of her properties. A petition enquiry was conducted as per the directions of the State, but, the State did not grant necessary sanction to prosecute the first respondent as he was in service at that time. So, she took up the matter on her own and successfully prosecuted the first and second respondents in C.C.No.10882 of 1991 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court. THE prosecution ended in conviction and sentence. Prior to the said prosecution, the second respondent herein filed W.M.P.No.4208 and 4209 of 1990 in the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the Revision petitioner and obtained an order for enquiry into the allegations levelled by the Revision petitioner in the affidavit filed by her in the Habeas Corpus petition to find out whether they are perjury or not. THEreafter, the Civil Revision petitioner filed W.M.P.No.23551 of 1991 and 23552 of 1991 in the very same Ha-beas Corpus petition, praying to recall the order passed by this court, ordering enquiry. By order dated 9.12.1991, a Division Bench of this court directed both Calendar case as well as the perjury enquiry to go side by side and to be heard simultaneously. After the conviction of the respondents 1 and 2 in C.C.No.10882 of 1991, they have now filed Criminal Ap-peals No.44 and 50 of 2001, which are pend-ing on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.