REETA Vs. E PREMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 09.02.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, in CMP No,4542 of 2006 in C.C.No,784 of 2005, this criminal revision is focussed.

(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The respondent herein filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore as against the accused persons, viz., (1) Reeta (2) M. Vijayakumar (3) Chandrasamy (4) Karunakaran (5) Raja Gunaseelan (6) Arulselvan (7) J. John Ramesh (8) S. Arulprabhu (9) J. Rajnikanth and (10) R. Rajesh, for the offences under Sections 120(B), 500, 420 and 496 r/w Section 109 of IPC., on the ground that the first accused/Reeta even though happened to be the wife of the complainant/Premkumar, the respondent herein, married A2/Vijaya Kumar. All other accused helped him by conspiring with him and accordingly, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to all the accused. The Magistrate should have resorted to warrant procedure as contemplated under part-B, Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. However, the order is not clear in that regard.

(3.) DESPITE printing the name of the counsel for the respondent, none appeared. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.