thoughts
**********************
Just see how easy it is for one woman .... that too a suspected second wife , to file a case under various sections including DEFAMATION 499, Criminal intimidation - 503 & Intentional Insult with intent to provoke breach of peace against the legally wedded wife & her father, brother and others because these men and women in the first place filed bigamy case earlier!
One S. Latha wife of Sekar apprehends that husband has entered into a bigamous relationship and files a bigamy cases against Pachayammal , the suspected second wife.
Pachayammal gets a counter blast case u/s IPC 499 - DEFAMATION, 503 - CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION & 504 - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace filed against legally wedded wife and her relatives !!
legally wedded wife and relatives have to run to HC to get the false case quashed !!
WHY IS THERE NO PUNISHMENT FOR THE POLICE, MAGISTRATES accepting and filing false cases ???
and .... just imagine how difficult it is for MEN to file defamation cases !!!, while IF a woman files a false case the same is accepted readily
*********************************************************
This judgment and other similar judgement posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgement or the judgement itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise
*******************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NET SIDE
*******************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 31.03.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Crl. O.P.No. 10906 of 2006
1.N.Raman
2.R.Ponnambalam
3.R.Nandagopal
4.S.Latha
5.K.R.Arumugham
6.A.Srinivasan
7.Linganathan .. Petitioners
..Vs..
N.Pachayammal .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in C.C. No.51 of 2006 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani and quash the same.
--------
For Petitioners : Mr. S. Udhayakumar
For Respondent : Mr. S. Sairaman
--------
O R D E R
The petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. No. 51 of 2006, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, for offence under Sections 499, 503 and 504 I.P.C. seek to quash the case against them.
2. In the said case, the fourth petitioner S.Latha, wife of one Sekar as also the other petitioners, who are the father and brothers of the fourth petitioner are said to have caused a commotion at the residential place of the complainant stating the husband of the fourth petitioner entered into a bigamous marriage with the respondent/complainant. The complaint also informed that at the hands of the petitioners, the complainant has suffered severe damage marring the prospects of her marriage.
3. The petitioners inform that two mentally retarded children were born to the fourth petitioner and her husband Sekar and the said Sekar had entered into a bigamous marriage with the respondent/complainant. The fourth petitioner had moved divorce petition before the Sub-Court, Thiruvallur and till date no maintenance had been given either to the fourth petitioner or to the minor children. According to the petitioners, the revenue authorities had informed that the fourth petitioner's husband Sekar and the defacto complainant had entered into a bigamous marriage. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that a complaint had been preferred by the fourth petitioner against her husband P.Sekar, the respondent/complainant and one another alleging commission of offence under Section 494 I.P.C. It was only as a counter blast, the respondent/complainant has preferred the complaint and hence, this case is to be quashed.
4. In response to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent had been defamed by the petitioners and when the lower Court thought it fit to take cognizance, this Court would not interfere. It is impressed that under orders in Crl. O.P. No.9450 of 2007 dated 02.12.2008, the case alleging bigamy in C.C. No.124 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District, stands quashed.
5. Considering the rival submissions, it is seen that this Court had quashed the case in C.C. No.124 of 2005, on the reasoning that neither in the complaint nor in the sworn statement, there are allegations constituting the ingredients for the commission of the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. and the details with regard to the alleged second marriage undergone by the first petitioner P.Sekar with the respondent herein, names of the witnesses, who allegedly witnessed the second marriage and the essential ceremonies which are necessary for performing a valid marriage had not been mentioned.
C.T.SELVAM,J.
kj
6. From the fact that a offence of bigamy has been complained in C.C. No. 124 of 2005, it can be gauged that the petitioners held genuine belief that the husband of the fourth petitioner and the defacto complainant had entered upon a bigamous marriage. The case alleging bigamy stands quashed not on factual considerations. It is apparent that the present complaint case has been filed only as a counter blast and amounts to a malafide abuse of process.
7. For the above reasons, the criminal original petition stands allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 51 of 2006, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani shall stand quashed.
31.03.2010
kj
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
The Judicial Magistrate
Tiruttani.
Crl.O.P.No.10906 of 2006
#damn_easy_for_women_to_file_defamation
#is_it_so_easy_for_women_to_file_defamation ?
No comments:
Post a Comment