GAMLYANTIS LYNGKHOI Vs. TENGME G MOMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.S. Siddique, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) Upon hearing the parties through their respective counsel and perusal of the materials before the Court, the following facts are ascertained : The present respondent, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, filed a complaint as against the present respondent, hereinafter referred to as the accused, in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Tura, West Garo Hills alleging commission of offences under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 511/315, IPC. The complainant was an unmarried girl aged about 19 years and the accused was a police constable of 2nd MLP Battalion Goeragre, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya at the relevant time. The complaint is to the effect that by promising to marry her but without disclosing the fact that he was already a married man, the accused fraudulently and deceitfully induced her to have carnal knowledge with him during the nights of 17.2.2006 and 18.2.2006. Further according to the complainant, when she met the accused on 12.6.2006, she came to know that he was not interested to discuss anything about marrying her. Moreover, according to the complainant, on coming to know that she was pregnant as a result of their sexual relation, the accused instructed her to go to Tura Civil Hospital for getting abortion of his child. On 18.9.2006, Additional District Magistrate, West Garo Hills passed an order registering a case on the basis of the said complaint and transferring it to Shri D.D. Sangma, Magistrate 1st Class for disposal. On 3.8.2006, an order was passed purportedly by the concerned Magistrate for issuing summon to the accused. It is to be noted that at the time of issuing the summon, the complainant was not yet examined in connection with her complaint. On 5.9.2006, when both the parties appeared, the concerned Magistrate directed the complainant to supply a copy of the complaint to the accused and fixed 21.11.2006 for the said purpose. Before reaching the said date, the case was purportedly put up before a Lok Adalat but no attempt for settlement of the case could be made due to absence of the complainant. On 21.11.2006, after recording the fact of absence of the accused and the submission of the counsel of the complainant about inability of the complainant to be present due to her advanced state of pregnancy, the concerned Magistrate ordered for issuing bailable warrant of arrest as against the accused. On 6.3.2007, an order was passed withdrawing the case and thereafter transferring the same to Smti A.N.D. Shira for disposal. On 6.3.2007, purportedly, the concerned authority to whom the case was transferred passed an order noting the fact of receiving the case on transfer from the learned ADM(J), fixing 26.3.2007 for recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses, if any, and directing to issue notice to the OP/accused through I/C Monabari for appearing on the date as fixed. On 26.3.2007, both the parties were present and 25.4.2007 was fixed for evidence of the complainant. On 25.4.2007, the statement of the complainant was recorded in the absence of the accused and 28.5.2007 was fixed for further evidence. On the same day, an order was passed in its effect for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused. On 28.5.2007, the learned Magistrate recorded the fact of presence of the complainant with her counsel as well as the fact of surrender made by the accused with reference to the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued as against him. On a prayer made on behalf of the accused, he was allowed to go on bail on his furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of the like amount. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case till 20.6.2007 for evidence.

(3.) This case has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, 1973 praying for quashing the proceedings of the CR Case No. 199/2006 pending in the Court of Smti AND Shira, Magistrate 1st Class at Tura alleging that the learned Magistrate committed illegalities and irregularities in the proceedings of the said case and that the complaint petition does not disclose any evidence.