IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 28.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2010 Mrs.J.Vijayakumari @ Vanarose .. Petitioner Vs 1. State rep by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station (Crime No.6 of 2000) Tambaram, Chennai 2.Mr.A.Balaiah 3.Mrs.Kalaimani .. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records pertaining to the order of acquittal dated 02.09.2010 in C.C.No.327 of 2000 passed by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate at Tambaram and set aside the same by allowing the criminal revision petitioner. For Petitioner : No appearance ----- ORDER There is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass an order after going through the petition and the connected documents produced along with the petition. 2. Based on the complaint of the petitioner herein, a case was registered on the file of All Women Police Station, Tambaram as Crime No.6 of 2000 and after investigation, a final report was submitted against the respondents 2 and 3 herein for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram on his file as C.C.No.327 of 2000. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 of the offences for which they stood charged. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Questioning the correctness and legality of the said judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant, namely the petitioner, who also figured as PW1 before the trial Court, has come forward with the present criminal revision case. 4. The prosecution case put forth against the respondents 2 and 3 herein before the trial Court was that the second respondent married the petitioner in Chennai Besant Nagar Vellankanni Church in 1981; that due to the cohabitation, they got two children and that during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent as wife and husband, the second respondent not only treated the petitioner with cruelty, but also committed the offence of bigamy by contracting a marriage with the third respondent herein. 5. On appearance before the trial Court, the respondents took a stand that the petitioner was not the wife of the second respondent and there was no marriage between them as alleged by the prosecution and that therefore, both the charges were made without the basic requirement of the existence of a relationship of husband and wife. 6. The prosecution examined totally four witnesses, including the petitioner, in order to substantiate its case and two documents were marked as Exs.P1 and P2. The complaint lodged by the petitioner with the police was marked as Ex.P1, whereas the FIR in the printed form was marked as Ex.P2. Apart from the above said two documents, no other document was produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. 7. The Court below on a consideration of evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent alleged by the prosecution was not proved by reliable evidence. For arriving such a conclusion, the learned trial Judge pointed out the following defects in the prosecution case: 1)Though the marriage was allegedly solemnized in the year 1981, date and month of marriage were not furnished; 2)In Ex.P1 complaint, the place of marriage was given as Besant Nagar Velankanni Church, whereas evidence was adduced, as if the marriage was solemnized in Ashta Lakhsmi Temple in Besant Nagar; 3)It was also averred in the complaint that the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent was subsequently registered, but no certificate of registration of marriage was produced; and 4) No document showing birth of children to the petitioner through the second respondent had been produced; In view of the above said points noticed by the trial Court, it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to the conclusion that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent was not proved. The necessary corollary is that the petitioner/de facto complainant was not proved to be the wife of the second respondent, in which case alone Section 498-A IPC will stand attracted. In line with the above said finding and for the same reasons, the Court below has also come to the conclusion that the charge of bigamy has also not been proved. 8. Upon perusing the judgment of the Court below, this Court is not able to find any defect or infirmity in it. Having failed to produce necessary documentary evidence and having adduced evidence, which is contrary to the averment made in the complaint, the petitioner even without seeking the leave of the Court has chosen to produce copies of certain additional documents in the form of typed-set of papers. The first document that is sought to be produced is nothing but a copy of the marriage invitation. No importance can be attached to the same, as such an invitation can be printed at any time. No one had spoken about the printing and distribution of such wedding invitation cards. The second document is purported to be a certificate obtained from a Medical Officer of CSI Hospital, Ikkadu. The same is dated 10.07.1990. The other document which is sought to be produced is a birth certificate obtained in 1996. Another document sought to be produced is a letter dated 13.09.1981, allegedly written by the second respondent to the petitioner. These documents, which were of the years 1981 to 1996, could have been produced in the lower Court itself. No reason has been assigned for the non-production of the same before the trial Court and in fact, the first and second document sought to be produced are mutually destructive of the other. The first document, namely the marriage invitation is said to be one printed in the name of the brother of the second respondent, whereas the second document, namely the letter is to the effect that they would keep the marriage as a secrete one, as the parents of the second respondent had not given their consent for the said marriage. The contents of the said document are also to the effect that the second respondent asked the petitioner (PW1) not to have any worry, because the marriage had not been registered. That itself is contra to the contents of the complaint, which is to the effect that the marriage was registered. Even if the documents which are now sought to be produced are taken into account, that will not be sufficient to prove the alleged marriage of the petitioner with the second respondent. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram on a proper appreciation of evidence and on correct application of law, came to the right conclusion that none of the charges stood proved. There is no defect or infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the respondents 2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, with which they stood charged. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ There is no merit in the present criminal revision case. The criminal revision case does not even merit admission. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Sd/ Asst Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst Registrar gpa To 1. Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Tambaram, Chennai 2.Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram 3.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai (CO-SJ) Crl.R.C.No.1074 of 2010 28.10.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/