DURVASA Vs. CHANDRAKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are accused in C. C. 496/90 on the file of the Munsiff and J. M. F. C., Koppal, have filed this petition under Section 401, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 23-8-1990 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., issuing process against them for offence under Section 494 read with Section 109, IPC.

(2.) The respondent has filed the complaint before the Magistrate alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner, their marriage having taken place on 2-6-1978 as per the custom of the family, that she was living with the first petitioner for 10 years and gave birth to three children, that the first petitioner was ill-treating her as he was given to some vices and ultimately he drove her out of the house in February, 1988, that she came to know in February, 1990 that the first petitioner was searching for a bride for second marriage, that she then filed a suit against him and obtained a temporary injunction restraining him from going through a second marriage, that in spite of that injunction on 8-6-1990 all the nine petitioners went to Huliyamma temple at Munirabad that there the first petitioner with the assistance of petitioners-3 and 4, who are his parents, and the assistance of the petitioner 5 and 6, who are the parents of the second petitioner, petitioner-7, who is the brother of the petitioner-2, and petitioners-8 and 9, who are relatives of petitioners, married the second petitioner and thus the accused have committed the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 and 34, IPC. It is further alleged in the complaint that four witnesses who had gone to the temple have witnessed the commission of the offence and that they informed the complainant about the marriage.

(3.) The Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and two other witnesses. After considering the allegations in the complaint and the statement of the complainant and the witnesses, the learned Magistrate passed an order holding that there was prima facie material to indicate that the first petitioner who was legally married to the complainant had during the subsistence of the marriage married the second petitioner with the assistance of the other petitioners and that they had committed the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109, IPC. He has therefore ordered issue of process to the petitioners.