This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.170 of 2013, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri district and to quash the same.
2. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the second respondent's daughter belongs to Vanniyar community. There appears to have been a love affair between the petitioner and the second respondent's daughter owing to which both of them had love affair for the purpose of marriage. Based on the complaint given by the second respondent, the first respondent had registered a case in Crime No.170 of 2013 under
Section 366 of IPC r/w
Section 9 and
11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending the complaint, the victim daughter of the second respondent, had died by committing suicide. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent/defacto complainant.
4. From a perusal of the complaint, it is seen that admittedly the second respondent had not complained of the fact that the petitioner had married his daughter. Likewise the complaint also does not show that his daughter who had gone to the college, had not returned and therefore the second respondent had given a complaint stating that the petitioner herein had made some preparations to marry his daughter. In other words, it is not the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioner had married his daughter. The offence for which the petitioner is now made as an accused is under
Section 366 of IPC r/w under
Section 9 and
11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Since the complaint does not state that the petitioner had abducted the second respondent's daughter and there are materials to show that the second respondent's daughter had voluntarily went with the petitioner, the offence under
Section 366 of IPC has not been made out. Likewise,
Section 9 and
11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 deals with punishment for marriage being contracted with a child. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not married the second respondent's daughter, but had only made some preparations for getting her married. As such, the offence under
Section 366 of IPC r/w under
Section 9 and
11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is also not made out. Though the complaint was given way back on 24.02.2013, the first respondent police had chosen to file the charge sheet only on 24.08.2017. This fact of filing of charge sheet was also disclosed only when the present criminal original petition was filed and that too, as a matter of fact, after the report was called for from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, Dharmapuri district who had taken the charge sheet on file and assigned PRC.No.14/17. Hence, I see no justification for the delay in filing the charge sheet also.
5. In view of the fact that the offences alleged in the complaint have not M.S.RAMESH, J dpq been made out, the petitioner is entitled to succeed with the present petition. Consequently the proceedings in Crime No.170 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent police are quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed.
05.10.2017 Index : Yes/No dpq To
1.The Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri district.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.15215 of 2017