PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. DHANALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 13217 of 1987 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. This is a petition praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 13217 of 1987 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) According to the petition, the first respondent. Dhanalaxmi has filed the complaint against the petitioner and five others for offences under Ss.494, 496 and 498-A, I.P.C., alleging that she had married the petitioner at Thanjavur on 29-4-1979, and there are two issues a girl aged about 5 years and a boy aged about 5 years, and that she lived with the petitioner until the year 1982, and their last residence was at No. 54 Vellala St. Ayyanavaram, Madras, and she was finally deserted in March 1983. Further, according to her, the petitioner demanded dowry by way of jewels and cash before the marriage and after the marriage and also demanded scooter, television, fridge, etc. and she was treated cruelly. She filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P. 426 of 1983 and it was withdrawn and later O.P. 340 of 1985 was filed on the file of the City Civil Court, for divorce and while the case was pending, she had occasion to go to petitioner's house with her father and his friends as suggested by the Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, to talk about the compromise and on that occasion that petitioner was not in the house but the second respondent herein was present in the house and when enquired she informed that she is the wife of the petitioner and on further enquiries the first respondent herein learnt that the petitioner married the second respondent herein and the marriage was performed in the presence of the other accused and some people close to the accused. The second respondent also delivered a child and the birth of the child had been concealed by giving false name and address. In the sworn statement she has mentioned about the demanding of the dowry six months after the marriage. Further it has been mentioned in the complaint that the first respondent came to know that the marriage was performed secretly.

(3.) The learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the offences under S.498A, 112, 114, 120 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and according to the petitioner the complaint and the sworn statement did not disclose any offence. The complaint has been filed since she has film the petition for divorce in the year 1985 on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and the complaint has been filed out of spite and under such circumstances, it has been prayed that the entire records of the case has to be called for and the proceedings to be quashed.