Rangasamy, J. - (1.) These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the order of compromise recorded in C.C.Nos. 1923 to 1925 of 1989 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.
(2.) The allegations in these three petitions are common. The petitioner claiming to be the Social Worker for the uplift of women and as the Chair-person of the Madras Citizens Progressive Council has filed these petitions mentioning them as public interest litigations to protect the interest of the weaker sex. The second respondent is a cine actor. Three girls by names, Lakshmi, Beena and Sheela lodged complaints against the 2nd respondent individually in May, 1985. The complainant Lakshmi alleged that the 2nd respondent had committed the offences under Sections 420, 376 and 354 of Indian Penal Code on her. Whereas the second complainant Beena alleged that the second respondent had committed the offences under Sections 420, 354 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The 3rd complainant Sheela alleged the offences under Section 420, 376, 307, 506 Part II and 292-A of Indian Penal Code against the 2nd respondent. Though very serious allegations were made against the second respond ent by these girls even for the allegations under Sections 376 and 307 of Indian Penal Code after investigation by the Saidapet Police Charge Sheets were filed only for the offences under Sections 354 and 470 of Indian Penal Code that too in March, 1988. After the filing of the Charge Sheet on 16-6-1988 the complainants and the accused filed a petition under Section 320 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code seeking permission to compound the offences and on the permission of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, the offences were compounded in all the three cases and the accused was acquitted. The petitioner is challenging this order of compounding and the acquittal of the accused. According to the petitioner a fraud was played upon the Court by die 2nd respondent/accused and the police in their joint effort by impersonating the complainants before the Court for the purpose of compounding the offences and therefore, the order permitting for compounding the offences is illegal and is in effective. It is stated that the real complainants did not appear before the Court, but in their names three, girls were produced before the learned Magistrate in connivance with police as though the real complainants had agreed to compromise the matter with the 2nd respondent and the Court also was made to believe that the complainants were before the Court agreeing to compound the offences and thus the fraud was committed upon the Court by the Inspector of Police, Saidapet and also the second respondent/accused and the entire judicial proceedings was made a mockery and by such fraud the people will lose faith in the Court proceedings. Hence it is stated that the fraud committed on the Court has to be set right by setting aside the orders of permission granted to compound the offences by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.Nos. 1923 to 1925 of 1988.
(3.) Both the respondents have filed counters denying the allegation of impersonation and fraud on the Court. They also have disputed the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain these petitions as she is a third party to the proceedings.;