KUMARI MAYA Vs. ISHWARLAL CHUNILAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20th February, 1987, passed by the learned Addl, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay rejecting the application of the petitioner-complainant for holding the trial in camera as provided under section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner filed a complaint on 21st March, 1985 before the learned Magistrate against respondent No. 1 for offences under sections 493, 496 and 506 part 11 of the Indian Penal Code. Broadly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she was serving with respondent No. 1 accused as a Personal Secretary since about January 1978. Ultimately, they developed intimacy and the accused is alleged to have induced trust and confidence not only in the complainant but also in her family members. The accused, in fact, secured an accommodation for the complainant and her family members at Mahim sometime in June, 1980. It is further narrated that the complainant moved with the accused to various places in India, and on insistence from the complainant and her family members, the accused and the complainant on 24th March, 1983, are alleged to have gone through some marriage ceremony in Shri Datta Mandir situated at Thakurdwar, Bombay. The complainant and the accused cohabited and they had sexual intercourse as husband and wife. Thereafter, they went to Goa. They also went on a tour to Europe, and ultimately, on their return, the accused is alleged to have revealed that he is already a married person and that the complainant should continue the relationship with him and be happy for the rest of her life. It is alleged that after coming to know this, the complainant left the accused. But even thereafter, the accused continued to threaten her that she should live with him as his mistress.

(3.) On 27th November, 1986, the petitioner made an applications stating that she is a young woman and her oral deposition before the Court relates to very personal and intimate life which she is not in a position to speak out if members of the public are present in the Court. She further submitted that, in the interest of justice, the Court should order the members of the public generally not to be present in the Court room during the trial. The respondent-accused opposed the application. He contended that holding of trial in open is a very important aspect of criminal trial.