D.Saravanan vs State By on 28 February, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 28.02.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

CRL.O.P.No.18860 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

D.Saravanan … Petitioner

– Vs –

1. State by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Villupuram.

2. Sudha … Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to Juvenile Case No.41 of 2006 on the file of Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh

For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Madan
Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings of the case in Juvenile Case No.41 of 2006 pending against the petitioner on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Cuddalore.

2. Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Madan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1st respondent.

3. On the strength of the complaint dated 18.07.2006 lodged by the 2nd respondent/Sudha, the 1st respondent/Police had registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2006 as against the petitioner under Section 498A of I.P.C. On the date of lodging of complaint, the 2nd respondent Sudha was aged about 19 years whereas, the petitioner Saravanan was aged about 17 years. After completion of the investigation, the respondent/Police had filed a final report before the Juvenile Justice Board at Cuddalore and the same was taken on the file of the Principal / Chairperson Juvenile Justice Board in Juvenile Case No.41 of 2006 and it is still pending for trial. Under this circumstance, the petitioner being the accused in the above said case has come forward with this petition for quashing the criminal proceedings of the case in Juvenile Case No.41 of 2006 pending against him on the file of the above said Court.

4. It is revealed from the records that the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent / complainant were neighbours and they had therefore fallen in love with each other. Such intimacy resulted in the juvenile visiting the defacto complainant frequently and they were emboldened to have pre-sex, when the 2nd respondent/complainant was made to believe that the petitioner would marry her. Such sexual intimacy between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was resulted in pregnancy.

5. When the respondent/complainant had informed her pregnancy to the petitioner, he had persuaded her and since they both are belonged to different caste, they had left their respective houses on 13.06.2006 and subsequently got married in temple at Villupuram.

6. Whileso, on 17.06.2006, some unknown persons came to the place where the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were residing and forcibly took the petitioner leaving the respondent/complainant in lurch. Since the juvenile did not return, the respondent/complainant had lonely returned to her village. Surprisingly, she had found the juvenile there and she straight away went to the house of the petitioner and requested to regularise their marital relationship. The parents of the juvenile did not allow her even to enter in to the house and therefore, she had lodged a complaint with the respondent/police which resulting in filing of the case in Juvenile Case No.41 of 2006 before the Juvenile Justice Board.

7. Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his argument has submitted that the 2nd respondent had subsequently delivered a female child and thereafter, the child has passed away. He would further submit that at the time of marriage, the petitioner herein was aged about 17 years and as per Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, there cannot be a valid marriage unless the bride groom has not completed 21 years and the bride has completed 18 years. He has also argued that the marriage between two Hindus could be solemnised only if the condition prescribed under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is fulfilled.

8. He has also maintained that since the petitioner was aged about only 17 years, the provisions of Section 498 A would not be attracted as against him. During the course of his argument, he has made reference to the decision of Apex Court in Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Another (CDJ 2009(SC) 1343), wherein it is held that the complaint and the charge sheet of the present nature does not constitute a case under Section 498A and therefore, Juvenile Case No.41 of 2006 pending against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. He has also added that none of the explanation containing 498A of I.P.C., would be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and as held by the Apex Court in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Sivalingappa Konjalgi (1976 (3) SCC 736 has held that the Juvenile Justice Board before issuing the process to the petitioner ought to have applied its mind as to the nature of the complaint where the allegations would constitute an offence under Section 498A of I.P.C.

9. Mr.N.Suresh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after the death of the female child, the 2nd respondent/complainant was given in marriage to another man and the through him, she had delivered a male child and that she had been living with that man as his wife and hence nothing survives in Juvenile Justice case No.41 of 2006 and therefore, he has urged to quash the criminal proceedings.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has also conceded with the submissions made by N.Suresh and he has left the matter to the decision of this Court for disposal in accordance with the procedure known to law.

11. This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) and perused the averments of petition along with the other relevant materials.

12. Having given due consideration, this Court finds that the juvenile case No.41 of 2006 is deserved to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the Criminal proceedings of the juvenile case No.41 of 2006 are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

28.02.2017
Index:Yes / No
Internet:Yes / No
ssn

To

1. The Juvenile Justice Board,
Cuddalore.

2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Villupuram.

3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

T.MATHIVANAN, J.,

ssn

CRL.O.P.No.18860 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010

28.02.2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *