K.Mani vs M.Gokila
2021 Latest Caselaw 24988 Mad

                                                                            Crl.O.P.No.23649 of
                                                          2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 20.12.2021

                                                        CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                Crl.O.P.No.23649 of 2019

                     1.K.Mani
                     2.M.Selvi
                     3.Jeya
                     4.C.Palaniyammal
                     5.Mani
                     6.M.Amsa
                     7.M.Subramani
                     8.M.Arul
                                                                                  ...Petitioners
                                                          Vs.
                     M.Gokila
                                                                          ...Respondent
                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
                     Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
                     C.C.No.146 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,
                     Rasipuram and quash the same.
                                      For Petitioners    : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar
                                      For Respondent    : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
                                                          for Mr.G.Anu Murugan




                     1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.O.P.No.23649 of
                                                             2021


                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call

for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2017, on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram and quash the

same.

2. The first petitioner is the mother of A1/accused; the second

petitioner is the wife of A1; the third petitioner is the sister of A1; the

fourth petitioner is the grandmother of A1 (died); the fifth petitioner is the

father of A2; the sixth petitioner is the mother of A2; the 7th and 8th

petitioners are the brothers of A2. All have approached this Court to

quash the proceedings contending that they are close relatives of A1 and

A2.

3. The respondent is the legally wedded wife of Muthukumar/A1

and their marriage has been solemnized in front of the close relatives on

25.02.2010. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant started matrimonial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23649 of

life at the house of A1 within three months from the date of the marriage

due to difference of opinion arouse between the respondent/ complainant

and A1. She forcibly sent out from the matrimonial. She filed

M.C.No.13 of 2013 before Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram for

maintenance since her all efforts for reunion was failed. While so, on

13.10.2014, the 1st accused married one Priya which was arranged by all

his family members/petitioners herein. Therefore, the respondent has

filed a private complaint against these petitioners based upon that the

case was taken on file in C.C.No.146 of 2017 for the offences under

Sections 109, 494 and 143 of IPC and the present petition has been filed

only to drag on the proceedings.

4. In the judgment in S.Saraswathi and others Vs. Sumathi, in

Crl.O.P.No.2786 of 2017 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1972 and 1973 of 2017, this

Court has held as follows:

16.Amidst the narration of facts, the detailed allegations made

by the respondent/complainant in her complaint against the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23649 of

accused persons, with regard to the conduct of second

marriage are as follows:

16.1. The respondent/complainant came to know

through her father's friend N.Sivakumar that her husband (A1)

has married S.Rajeshwari (A2) at Rathina Vinayagar Temple

at R.S.Puram on 21.05.2000, even when the marriage between

her and her husband is still subsisting;

16.2. The said N.Sivakumar found the husband of the

complainant (A1) in Muhurta Dhoti and S.Rajeshwari (A2) in

Muhurtha Saree. Further, he noticed that A3 to A7 were also

dressed up in new clothes;

16.3. The Thali was taken by P.Kanagaraj (A6) and

was handed over to S.Kanagasabathy (A1), who tied the Thali

with three knots on her neck of S.Rajeshwari (A2) with the

assistance of K.Chandra(A7);

16.4.Further, her Brother-in-law S.Vinayagamoorthy

(A4) handed over two garlands to A1 and A2, who exchanged

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23649 of

the garlands for each other;

16.5. Further, the new couple had fallen at the feet of

her mother-in-law Saraswathi (A3) and K.Chnadra (A7), who

blessed them;

16.6. S.Vinayagamoorthy (A4) and Sakthiya Priya (A5)

were also wishing them with a small bouquet;

16.7. The ceremonies were conducted as per Hindu

Rites and Customs;

16.8. When the same was questioned by the said

N.Sivakumar as to how they can conduct the second marriage

when the first marriage with the complainant is subsisting, all

the seven accused criminally intimidated him and warned him

not to interfere with the matrimonial matter, hence, he kept

quiet and came out.

17. The respondent/complainant, in her statement

before the police, has stated as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23649 of

The respondent/complainant's father's friend visited the

temple at R.S.Puram. She did not remember the date. At that

time, her husband (A1) and S.Rajeshwari (A2) were seen in

Muhurtha Dress and the same was informe to her and on that

day, his uncle P.Kanagaraj (A6) had taken out the Thali and

handed over the same to A1, who tied the Thali around the

neck or A2. At the time, the petitioners herein (A3 to A5), his

uncle P.Kanagaraj (A6) and K.Chandra (A7) were also

present at the place of occurrence. When enquired, A1 replied

by asking him to mind his own business (cd; ntiyia

ghh;j;Jf; bfhz;L ngh) . On further enquiry, it was found

that they were having two children, namely Akshaya and

Hariharan, and since they did not get any evidence, relating to

the second marriage, she has not given any complaint and only

when she got some evidence, she filed the complaint.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23649 of

petitioners relied upon the judgment in S.Saraswathi and others Vs.

Sumathi in the High Court of Madras in Crl.O.P.No.2786 of 2017 in

Crl.M.P.Nos.1972 and 1973 of 2017. On a perusal of the facts in the

referred case, this Court finds that the first wife gave a complaint after ten

years. However, case in hand, on coming to know of the alleged marriage,

immediately the first wife/defacto complainant approached the police and

lodged a complaint within one year. For all these years, the respondent is

waiting for justice. But due to the conduct of these petitioners, she is

suffering till date. So, I do not find any merit in this petition and the

judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not

squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed

and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of

six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23649 of

20.12.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ub

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., ub

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.23649 of 2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.23649 of

20.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis