JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This revision has been filed against the order passed by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras in Crl.M.P.No.1800 of 2002 in C.C.No.7919 of 1998, declining to discharge the accused/petitioner from the private complaint preferred by the complainant/respondent of an offence under Section 500 IPC.
(2.)The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows:
a) The respondent/complaint is a Lecturer in English in Bharathiar College for Women, Madras and hails from a respectable family. She was married to the accused/petitioner herein and out their wedlock a female child was born, but unfortunately the marriage tie broke up and due to certain things happened in the course of their wedlock, she was forced to give a complaint against her husband for offences under Section 420 and 406 IPC. The details of which are totally not necessary for the purpose of disposing of this revision, suffice to state that the said complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, who referred the matter to the Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. The Crime Branch on receipt of the same, registered a case and investigated the matter. The accused/petitioner being afraid that he may be arrested sought for Anticipatory Bail before this Court by filing an application in Crl.O.P.No.8639 of 1998. Notice was given only to the Public Prosecutor and when the matter came up for hearing, the complainant/respondent sought to implead herself by engaging a counsel to appose the said application. The counsel for the accused/petitioner sought time and filed an affidavit of the petitioner on the next hearing in support of the application for Anticipatory Bail. In the said affidavit, the following averments have been made "10. I state that in the month of July 1986 Usha Kalyani brought the said Abdul Razack to the house and when I suddenly went home for lunch and found the motor bike I was under the impression that my friend would have come. The door was closed and I range the bell. Since there was no power supply at that time, I went to the back yard to see if I could call Usha Kalyani. When I peeped in through the window, I saw that the said Abdul Razack having sexual intercourse with Usha Kalyani. After seeing me the said Abdul Razack fled and I had a mental shock. From that day onwards, I refused to have marital relationship with Usha Kalyani and I had to tolerate this for the sake of my daughter Ramya. 11. I further state that in furtherance to this I gathered information and found that Usha Kalyani has continued sexual relationship with many persons including Aslam and Assistant Flight person, Indian Airlines, residing at Anna Nagar and Kalyanaraman working at Bombay. I also got several information that many persons were visiting my house in my absence. When my daughter was 9 years old in the year 1992 she herself witnessed her mother in bed with a stranger and informed me about the same. When I questioned Usha Kalyani she physically assaulted my daughter and starved my daughter for two full days and I had to admit her in the hospital. Several alcohol were found in my wife's cup board and later I was informed by my daughter that Usha Kalyani has the habit of consuming alcohol regularly"
b) According to the complainant/respondent the above imputations were made in the affidavit by the accused/petitioner with the intention to harm the reputation, knowing fully well that the same is false and had been made made with the intention to malign her reputation and character. Hence, the complainant/respondent filed the present complaint before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC against the accused/petitioner.
c) On appearance the accused/petitioner filed a petition for discharge taking up a plea that the averments made in the affidavit would be protected under Exception 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that the exceptions has to be necessarily pleaded during the course of the trial and cannot be pre-judged. It is against this order, the present revision has been filed.
(3.)The imputations made in the affidavit by the accused/petitioner prima facie is defamatory and there is no quarrel and rightly so no arguments were advanced in relation to that. But the learned counsel appearing for the accused/petitioner would only say that this will certainly come under Exception 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.