S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - (1.) Subhra Chakraborty (alias-Kalpana) who was a student of the Baptist College, Kohima where the opposite party, Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam was a lecturer, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kohima Nagaland, alleging, inter alia, as under:-"3. That, your complaint begs to state that in April 1989, the accused person entered into Baptist College, Kohima as a Lecturer thereof and the complainant was a student of the said College at the relevant period. 4. That, the accused person was in said Service in Kohima from April 1989, till he resigned the Service on 27th Jan 1995, and was residing in a rented house in Kenezou Valley, Kohima owned by Dr. Zakiebatsu Angam. 5. That, on 6th Feb., 1995 the accused person left for Silchar and presently residing in his uncle's (Shri Amiya Kanta Chakraborty) house in Premtala, Silchar-4, Dist. Cachar, in the State of Assam and assumed his service as Lecturer in Cachar College (Commerce Dept.) Silchar-4 (Assam). 6. That, on the 10th June 1989 for the 1st time the accused visited the complainants' residence in Kohima and thereafter often he used to visit complaint's residence, as a teacher he was respected by the complainant as well as all the members including her parents. In course of such visits one in the month of Nov. 1989 the accused voluntarily told your complainant that he was already in her love. Thus there developed a love affair between themselves since 1989. 7.That, the complainant most humbly states further that with mala fide intention to practise deception on the complainant, the accused gave false assurance of marriage to the innocent complainant and thereby the accused dishonestly procured sexual intercourse with the complainant. The accused often use to induce the complainant to have biolgical contact with him, but whenever he was approached by the complainant to complete the marriage ceremony, the accused very tactfully used to defer the marriage sometimes saying that he was waiting for his parents formal consent and sometimes saying to cooperate him till he got a Govt. Service. 8. That, in course of continuation of the affairs between the complainant and the accused, the complainant got pregnant twice, once in the month of September, 1993 and secondly on the month of April, 1994 our of her cohabitation with the accused person. 9. That, the complainant being worried about her said pregnancy created pressure upon the accused to marry her immediately and to save her from being ruined, but the accused on the plea of his parents permission went on defering the marriage, as a result there was a quarrel, in between the complainant and the accused, where after the accused lastly opined for secret marriage to avoid social gathering as he was waiting for his parents permission. The complainant being pregnant was placed in very awkward position, as such, agreed to said secret marriage, accordingly the accused on the 20th September, 1993, married the complainant in front of the God he worships in his residence in Kenozou Valley, Kohima by putting Vermilion (sindur) on the complainant's forehead and accepted the complainant as his lawful wife and thus the complainant was consorted and consoled. But the complainant faced further corporal punishment, as the accused kept on insisting the complainant to be refrained from given birth to the baby and was pressurising her to undergo operation / abortion despite her refusal for the same. The accused with fraudulent intention to deceive the complainant proposed the said abortion on the plea that birth of the baby would be a barrier to convince his parents to accept the complainant as their daughter-in-law and such event would lead the complainant to a path of unhappiness. The complainant being an innocent lady failed to understand the accused's wicked and mischievous plan where by the accused succeeded and dishonestly motivated the complainant for abortion and compelled the complainant to undergo operation in the Putonou Clinic, Kohima and aborted in October 1993. 10. That, the said Ceremony of giving Sindur (Vermilion) on the complainant's forehead by the accused in front of the God made the complainant to believe that she was lawfully married wife of the accused and with such believe she in good faith completely submitted herself to the accused as an ideal wife and disbelieved the accused. The complainant even did not have any doubt as to why the accused insisted her to keep their marriage secret. The complainant was forced to undergo abortion even second time in the month of April '94, in the Carewell Nursing Home at Dimapur with the pretext that if the complainant gave birth any child before the accused could convince his parents she would never be accepted by Bodhisatta's parents and relatives further their marriage being a secret one, the developed stage of the complainant would hamper the dignity of her own parents and other paternal relations irreparably and thus taking the privilege of complainant innocency the accused has exploited the complainant in a very pre-planned way. The accused is so wicked that he even furnished a false name in the Nursing Home and signed the consent Register / paper as BIKASH GAUTAN concealing his real name BODHISATTA GAUTAM which fact was unknown to the innocent complainant untill recently and came to know only in the 2nd week of February, 1995 when the complainant went to obtain a certified copy of the abortion consent paper of the accused. A copy of said consent paper signed by the accused is annexed hereto and marked as Annexurel. 11. That, believing herself to be the lawful wife of the accused, the complainant like a dumb shouldered up all those hardship since 1989. On hearing the massage that the accused would go to Silchar, the complainant on 4th Feb. 95 went to Dimapur and visited the accused to take the complainant permanently with the accused to Silchar as he was going to Silchar to join as a Lecturer in a Government College named Cachar College which both of them actually waited for. But the wicked accused forgetting the consequences of his all fraudulent activities in total disregards of their marriage and their relationship refused to accept the complainant as his wife and abandoned the complainant asking her to forget all her dream. Be it further submitted that the accused's friends namely (1) Shri Subrata Datta, (2) Shri Ranadhir Deb (3) Shri Prasanta Dey and (4) Shri Pradeep Paul of Dimapur tried a lot to convince the accused and not to abandon the complainant in such a cruel manner, as he had already married the complainant and cohabited year together, but all efforts ended in futility as the accused in reply said that the giving of vermilion on complainant's forehead was pretext of marriage to overcome the past situations and not at all complete marriage and the accused repeatedly said that he had no option, but to abandon the complainant as his parents are not agreeable to accept the complainant as their daughter-in-law. 12. That, the accused not only induced the complainant and cohabited with her, giving her a false assurance of marriage but also fraudulently gave through certain marriage ceremony with knowledge that was not a valid marriage and thereby dishonestly made the complaint to believe that she was a lawfully married wife of the accused. The accused even committed the offence of miscarriage by compelling the complainant to undergo abortion twice against her free will. The way the accused exploited the complainant and abandoned her is nothing but an act of grave cruelty as the same has caused serious injury and danger to the complainant's health both mentally and physically, as such, the accused above named has committed Criminal offences punishable u/S. 312/420/493/496/498-A of Indian Penal Code,"
(2.) This complainant was registered as Criminal Case No. 1/95 under Sections 312/420/493/496/498-A, Indian Penal Code and Bodhisattwa Gautam was summoned but he in the meantime, filed a petition in the Gauhati High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint and proceedings initiated on its basis, on the ground that the allegations, taken at their face-value, do not make out any case against him. But the High Court by its Judgment and order dated May 12, 1995, dismissed the petition compelling Bodhisattwa Gautam to approach this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2675/95 was filed and was dismissed by us by our order dated October 20, 1995, in which we stated as under:- "We see no ground to interfer with the impugned Judgment of the High Court. We dismiss the special leave petition. Having done so, we further take suo motu notice to the facts of this case as narrated in the complain which has been read before us. We issue notice to the petitioner as to way he should not be asked to pay reasonable maintenance per month to the respondent during the pendency of the prosecution proceedings against him. Mr. A. Bhattacharjee accepts notice. List it on 1-12-1995. Petitioner in person be present in Court on the next date of hearing. Notice be also sent to the respondent along with the copy of this order."
(3.) Pursuant to the above order, Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam put in appearance and filed an affidavit in reply in which he denied the allegation made against him in the complaint and stated that the complaint was filed only to harass and humiliate him and, therefore, there was no occasion to direct him to pay any amount as maintenance to the respondent. He also indicated that although he had taken up service in another College, namely Cachar College, his services had since been terminated. Para 4 of his affidavit in which these facts have been stated is reproduced below:- "4. That I say that I am not in any employment now and I am an unemployed person after my services as a Lecturer in Cachar College, Silchar, has been terminated with effect from 16-7-1995 by a resolution of the Governing Body of the said College passed in a meeting held on 14-9-1995. A true copy of the proceedings of the said meeting of the Governing Body of Cachar College, Silchar held on 14-9-1995 is annexed hereto as Annexure-A1. The relevant resolution No. 5(A) of the said meeting of the Governing Body reads as follows: "Resolution No. 5(A): The principal placed the leave petitions of Shri B.Gautam, Lecturer, Deptt. of Commerce, adding that Shri Gautam resumed his duties in the College, on the re-opening day of the College after summer vacation, i.e., on 15th of July, 1995 and at first he sought leave for twenty one days and (sic) the for three years at stretch. The Principal also stated that Shri B. Gautam was appointed against a lien vacancy for one year vice Dr. A. Mazumdar, the one-year lien having expired on 9-9-1995. The matter was thoroughly discussed and it was unanimously resolved that since Shri. B.Gautam's term of appointment against lien vacancy had expired on 9-9-1995 and his service was not confirmed, (he did not complete even one full year's service), he cannot be granted three years' leave at a stretch as prayed for by him. Also resolved that as Shri B. Gautam has been absent from the College from 16th of July, 1995, and also the term of his appointment expired on 9-9-1995, Shri B. Gautam's service as lecturer in the Deptt. of Commerce in Cachar College, Silchar be treated as having been terminated w. e. f. 16th July, 1995. The principal be requested to forward the above resolution to the D. P. I. Assam, for his kind approval of the termination of the service of Shri B. Gautam w. e. i. 16-7-1995." This resolution along with other resolutions passed in the said meeting held on 14-9-1995 were placed before the meeting of the Governing Body held subsequently on 11-11-1995 for confirmation. A true copy of the notice of meeting is annexed hereto as Annexure -A2. Now I have been reliably informed that in the meeting of the Governing Body on 11-11-1995, the aforesaid resolution terminating my service has been confirmed. I further state that I have not received any payment towards my salary since July, 1995 and after the termination of my service with effect from 16-7-1995 no question of my receiving any salary arises. In the circumstances I respectfully submit that no question of burdening me with the liability of paying maintenance to the respondent can arise." ;