The petitioners seek to quash the compliant in C.C.No.311/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.
2. The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners for the offences under section 498(a), 494 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated in the complaint that the first Accused in the complaint has married the respondent in the year 1991 and later due to misunderstanding they were living separately for the past 12 years and on 01.09.2005 the first accused married the second accused at the Vinayagar Temple in the river bed of Bhavani River at Vanapathrakaliamman Temple, Mettupalayam even when the first marriage with the respondent was subsisting. It is alleged that the petitioners who are arrayed as accused 3 to 10 have aided the commission of 2nd marriage of the first accused with the second accused, and thus have abetted the commission of offence under
section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioners 1 and 2 and the parents of the first accused, 3rd petitioner is the sister, 4th petitioner is the Brother-in-law, 5th petitioner is the Brother of A1 and 6th petitioner is the wife of 5th petitioner, petitioners 7 and 8 are the parents of A2.
4. Mr.C.Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have not abetted the commission of crime and they have been arrayed as accused only because they are relatives of the first accused. He has further contended that even if it is taken that the petitioners have participated in the marriage ceremony, mere participation cannot be said that they have aided the commission of crime by the first accused.
5. The learned counsel would rely on a decision reported in C.S.Varadachari and others V. C.S.Shanti 1987 LW (Crl.) 84 in support of his contention that except stating that these petitioners were present and blessed the couple, there is obsolutely nothing to show the intention on the part of the petitioners to aid the commission of offence of bigamy.
6. In the said decision it is held as follows:
"..... The allegation levelled against these petitioners do not prima facie constitute the offence so as to warrant cognizance of the offence of abetment of bigamy under
section 494 r/w
section 114 I.P.C., against the petitioners and further there is also no legal evidence to connect these petitioners with the alleged crime also. Hence by allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, it would be nothing but an abuse of process of court and harassment to the petitioners. For all the reasons, I am of the view that the proceedings against these petitioners is liable to be quashed."
7. In another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in Karuppiah Servai and others V. Nagavalli Ammal 1981 LW (Crl.) 336 it is held as follows:
"... By mere association of the accused persons who are charged for an offence of abetment of the principal offender, in the absence of any material to show that there was an instigation by the petitioners or that there was any intention either in aiding or in the commission of the offence, it cannot be said that they have committed an offence of abetment."
8. In the present case, the allegations in the complaint are specific and clear that during the subsistence of an earlier marriage the Accused 1 and 2 have entered in to a second marriage and thereby committed an offence falling under
section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of A1 and the petitioners 7 and 8 are the parents of the second accused. It cannot be said that they had no knowledge that they are performing the second marriage the first accused with the second accused. Therefore, in the light of the allegation made in the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant before the Magistrate, the issuance of process to the petitioners 1, 2, 7 and 8 who are alleged to have solemnized the second marriage during the subsistence of earlier valid marriage is proper and the proceedings have to continue in accordance with law against those petitioners.
9. So far as the other petitioners 3,4,5 & 6 are concerned the allegations are vague and it cannot be assumed that they had by their presence or otherwise facilitated the solemnization of a second marriage with the knowledge that the earlier marriage was subsistence. In so far as those petitioners are concerned they had been unnecessarily roped in.
10. In the said background, the allegations made against the petitioners 3 to 6 impuling them with guilty knowledge unsupported by other material would not justify the continuance of the proceedings against these petitioners.
ARUNA JAGADEESAN., J.
tsh
11. Accordingly, the complaint before the Magistrate can be proceeded with as against the petitioners 1, 2, 7 and 8 only. So far as the petitioners 3 to 6 are concerned, this petition stands allowed and accordingly the proceedings stands quashed as against the petitioners 3 to 6. Petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.08.2009 tsh Internet : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Crl.O.P.No.30871 of 2006