Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in CC No.71 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru and quash the same in respect of the petitioners alone.
These petitions have been filed seeking quashment of the entire proceedings in CC No.71 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, as against the petitioners.
2.The short facts of the case is that on the inducement of A2 to A4, the marriage between A1 and the de-facto complainant namely the 2nd respondent herein, was solemnized on 17.06.2006 at Sanmugapriya Marriage Hall, Thiruvaiyaru. After marriage, A1 went London stating to take the 2nd respondent to London by arranging Visa and informed his wife to stay with his mother till then. Thereafter, A1 did not take the 2 nd respondent to London as promised by him. So, the de-facto complainant preferred a complaint before the 1st respondent police, which was registered in Crime No.169 of 2006 for the alleged offence under
sections 420 and
493 IPC. Thereafter, the 1st respondent police filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, against 4 persons, including the son of A1 and it was taken on file as CC No. 36 of 2009. As the Accused 1 to 3 have not chosen to appear before the trial court, the case against them was split up and the case was proceeded against A3. The trial court, by order, dated 30.03.2017 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3 acquitted A3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner and his son filed a quash petition in Crl.OP(MD)No.4601 of 2020 and subsequently, it was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.OP(MD)No.7462 of 2020 seeking quashment of the proceedings in CC No.71 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. This Court, by order, dated 18.02.2021 dismissed the petition on the ground of non-registration of marriage. But however, now the marriage certificate is available. Hence, these petitions came to be filed seeking quashment of CC No.71 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru.
3.Heard both sides.
4.At the time of argument, a specific question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the 2nd petition under
section 482 Cr.P.C will lie, when the earlier petition came to be dismissed on merits. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when the earlier matter was heard, the document which now has been produced was not available for consideration of this court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has put forth his argument effectively. But however, since earlier order has been passed on merits, it is not proper for this court, once again to go into the merits of this case, as to how the offence under 493 Cr.P.C IPC will be made out and attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a clear finding to the effect that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly attracts prima facie for the offence under
section 493 of IPC. So, this cannot reconsider or review in these petitions. So, this court finds no specific change of circumstances, that has been projected by the petitioner in these petitions.
6.In the complaint, it has been specifically stated by the 2nd respondent to the effect that the marriage was not registered. But however, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioner's marriage has been registered and the marriage certificate has also been issued by the Tashidhar, Thiruvaiyaru, on 19.06.2006. So according to him, this is a chance of circumstances. The earlier order has been passed on 18.02.2021. On that date, it appears that this document was also very much available in the hands of the petitioner. Why it was not produced the said document, was not properly explained. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5
7.Be that as it may, a certificate reads that the de-facto complainant Munjula got married to A1, on 10.04.2006 at Sanmugapriya Marriage Hall, Thiruvaiyaru. How the marriage certificate has been issued by the said Tahsildhar is not known. The Authorised Officer empowered to register the marriage under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009 is the competent person to issue such a certificate. But however, under what authority, such a certificate has been issued by the above said Tahsildhar is not understandable. Based upon such certificate, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot argue that this is the change of circumstances and so, these petitions will lie.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the number of judgments to show that the 2nd petition will lie, if sufficient materials and facts, which are entirely different from earlier one are available and this position has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of judgments. More particularly, in the decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 1002 (Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and others), which was also subsequently followed in number of judgments. No doubt, on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 different change of circumstances, the 2nd petition is maintainable. So the only condition is that the change of circumstance, that was available to the petitioners on the later occasion should not be the same available on the earlier occasion also.
9.Here, as mentioned earlier, the certificate alleged to have been issued by the Tahsildhar, Thiruvaiyar in 2006 itself as mentioned is very much available in the hands of the petitioner. So that cannot be considered. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage certificate is made available only after the disposal of various applications cannot be accepted and it will not lie also. So, even if it is considered that the document has been made available subsequent to the passing of the above said order, as mentioned earlier, the authority, who issued such a certificate is also questionable. The said Thasildhar is not competent authority to issue certificate, when the marriage has not been registered as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009. So even on merits, I find no substance in the argument, that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. So, these petitions deserve dismissal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7
10.Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
04.10.2021 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8 G.ILANGOVAN, J er To,
1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station, Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9313, 9319 and 9322 of 2021 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4774 to 4779 of 2021 04.10.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/