IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 16.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.O.P.No.21332 of 2006 & M.P.No.1 of 2006 A.Annadurai .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State by the The Inspector of Police B-6, Peelamedu Police Station Coimbatore District 2.R.Subashini .. Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records relating to C.C.No.113 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Tamilvel For Respondent 1 : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : Mr. V.Purushothaman ***** O R D E R
The petitioner, who stands accused of offences under Section 420 and 506(ii) IPC in case pending in C C.C.No.113 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore seek to quash proceedings as against him.
2.On the compliant of the 2nd respondent, Crime No.1148 of 2005 had been registered by the respondent police on 28.08.2005 for offences under Sections 376 and 506(ii) IPC against the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are that she had acquaintance with the petitioner for a period of about two years. When she informed him of the pendency of divorce proceedings between her and her husband, he promised to marry her after her obtaining divorce. On obtaining divorce, she had come to live with the petitioner. The petitioner threatened her to do whatever he said and under such threat, raped her. When questioned, he abused her and threatened to do away with her if she dared to complain. On completion of investigation, the 1st respondent has preferred charge sheet for offences under Section 420 r/w. 34 IPC.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had become acquainted in the course of their respective divorce proceedings. The petitioner who held a respectful position in life as a lecturer in the PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore had lent the 2nd respondent a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 03.07.2004 towards her starting a new business. Owing to the acquaintance, no interest was insisted upon or no loan documents were prepared. After repeated demands, a letter of undertaking was given by the 2nd respondent on 06.10.2004 undertaking to repay the sums in five equal instalments. Such undertaking was not honoured and the petitioner was threatened of a false complaint being filed against him, if he dared to take legal action. The petitioner has sent a legal notice to the 2nd respondent. Such notice also informs of certain unruly behaviour by the 2nd respondent on 21.07.2005 including the threat of committing suicide, if he called upon her to effect repayment. It is submitted that only as a counterblast thereto, the 2nd respondent issued a reply notice containing false allegations and followed up upon the same by preferring a false complaint.
4.The reply notice of the 2nd respondent dated 26.07.2005 was called for by this Court and it is now placed with the records. The very stand of the 2nd respondent in such reply is that the relationship between the parties blossomed into acquaintanceship, which paved way to mutual co-habitation between them. Though, such reply would go on to state that there was subsequently a promise of marriage, what we are now concerned with is that the petitioner faces a charge under Section 420 IPC viz., punishment for cheating. It is quite apparent that the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, to start with, was one of voluntary co-habitation between consenting adults. The essential element of deception at inception, the presence of which alone would substantiate a charge of cheating is lacking.
5.The allegations made of offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC also are related to and arise out of the cheating alleged. Further, it is clear that only in response to a legal notice, the 2nd respondent has caused reply and pursuant to that filing a compliant informing that offence of rape and criminal intimidation has been committed. The case of the 2nd respondent can only be seen to be a counterblast to the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner.
6.Considering the above factual scenario and having heard either side, this Court is inclined to accept this petition for quash. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.113 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
gm
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Madras