VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. SAMINATHA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above petition to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 259 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Karikal and quash the same.

(2.) Heard both sides. The petitioner is the accused. The respondent is the father of the accused. The respondent has filed a case for maintenance in M.C. No. 87 of 1990 for him and his wife. In the said case, the petitioner has filed petitions under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with his appearance on the ground of illness. The respondent has filed the private complaint in C.C. No. 259 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikal to punish the petitioner for the offences under Sections 191 and 193 of IPC as he has filed petitions under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. on various dates falsely alleging the reasons of heart attack and illness for his non-appearance, but he had been attending the bank where he is employed as Assistant Manager on that dates, thereby committed offences. Aggrieved by the said case, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the same.

(3.) Mr. Rathinam Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that learned Magistrate has taken the complaint on file without application of mind; that the petitions under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. were filed then and there and the court has taken into consideration the reason stated therein, allowed the same as such the same cannot be assailed by the respondent by way of private complaint; that the respondent has not opposed the petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. at any point of time; that the complaint does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 190 and 193 of I.P.C. as he has not let in any false evidence; that the petitioner has paid the entire arears of maintenance to the respondent and prayed for quashing the private complaint. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2000 (3) MWN (Cr) 324 (Yasothai Ammal and another Vs. Velayudam) wherein this court held that a complaint in writing should be preferred by a Presiding Officer of the Court or a Presiding Officer, to which that court is subordinate and cognizance of private complaint is barred.