IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.15452 of 2007 Padmavathy .. Petitioner Versus Kumarasamy .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2893 of 2006 pending on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. For Petitioner : M/s. Hari babu (No appearance) For Respondent : M/s. R.Sankara Subbu O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.15452 of 2007 to call for the records in C.C.No.2893 of 2006 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
2. The respondent/husband states as follows:
The respondent/husband has filed C.C.No.2893 of 2006 against his wife/petitioner herein on an alleged offence under 409 r/w. 420 IPC. The respondent contended in his complaint that he married the petitioner on 03.02.1984 and he had two children through his wife. Further, the respondent is an engineer by profession and he worked in various places like Chennai, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Sudan. The respondent had entrusted 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner/wife due to love and affection. On the petitioner’s inducement, the respondent sent huge amounts of money to her name periodically for investment in profitable deposits to improve the financial position of the complainant. The sum total of the money sent amounted to Rs.20,00,000/-.
3. Further, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner has developed illicit intimacy with one Satishkumar. On 01.03.2002, the petitioner and the said Satishkumar were found in compromising position in the bedroom of the respondent. The same was witnessed by her daughter and son besides neighbours of the locality. The respondent also made several complaints, regarding the illegal act of the accused. Further, the respondent in his complaint had sought return of Rs.20 lakhs and 36 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to the petitioner.
4. Further, the respondent has alleged that on 01.07.2003, the petitioner looted 36 sovereigns of gold, which was kept in locker of Syndicate Bank, Mount Road Branch, Chennai and which was jointly operated along with daughter. Further, the respondent contended that the petitioner took 36 sovereigns of gold jewellery from the bank locker besides Rs.17 lakhs entrusted to her, over a period of four years, from various banks. It is alleged that the said amount has been spent by the petitioner to lead a wayward life and indulge in adultery with one Satishkumar, who is residing at No.4/2, Kaliappan Naicken Street, Elumalayan Avenue, Ramavaram, Chennai-89. So, it is alleged that as the petitioner has cheated him, she is liable to be prosecuted under Section 420 IPC. Supporting the respondent’s complaint, he has mentioned two witnesses ie., his daughter and son besides himself and also mentioned four documents. The said case has been taken by the learned Magistrate on his file as C.C.No.2893 of 2006.
5. The petitioner has contended in her petition that as the petitioner’s father had helped the respondent in all aspects, the respondent was able to complete his studies. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father decided to give the petitioner to the respondent in marriage. Accordingly, the marriage was celebrated. After marriage, difference of opinion arose between the respondent and petitioner. Even then, both lived as husband and wife in Chennai and various other places. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. The petitioner has made out lot of allegations about the respondent’s brother in that his brother attempted to misbehave with her for sexual contact. The petitioner had further alleged that due to continuous harassment of the petitioner, she left the marital home and had forcibly joined her parents. Regarding the dispute between them, the petitioner filed M.C.No.274 of 2003 before the Family Court, Chennai. The petitioner had also filed O.P.No.1996 of 2003 for divorce. The Respondent filed O.P.No.1674 of 2004 for restitution of conjugal rights. Now, the respondent has filed C.C.No.2893 of 2006 against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Section 409 and 420 IPC.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued the case.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the respondent gave 36 sovereigns of gold jewellery out of love and affection to the petitioner. The same was kept in the bank locker and taken by the petitioner from the bank locker. The money sent by the respondent to the petitioner from abroad is purely on the basis of a husband and wife relationship. The petitioner has also furnished some details regarding how she spent and invested the money of the respondent, under 15 heads. Once, the relationship between husband and wife is prevailing and legally in force, at that time, if any transaction regarding money, gold etc., takes place between husband and wife. So, Criminal law, like 409 and 420 of IPC, will not apply.
8. Under the circumstances, the Court is inclined to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.2893 of 2006, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No.15452 of 2007 is allowed and therefore the proceedings in C.C.No.2893 of 2006 is quashed.
mra
To
1. The V Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras