K P STANELY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, along with another, faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 494 I.P.C. The crux of the complaint is that while the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant is subsisting, he has contracted another marriage with the second accused. Cognizance has been taken. The case was once dismissed. But by the order in Crl.R.P.No.765/1996 dated 03/02/2006, that order was set aside and the court below was directed to proceed with the matter. Adequate safeguards for protecting the interest of the petitioner - that he can apply for exemption, is already made by another Bench of this Court in the said decision.

(2.) The petitioner has now come to this court. He contends that the second marriage is even allegedly not a valid marriage. No marriage has taken place in the church. That alleged marriage is even allegedly only by a registered agreement. The purpose is being questioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that, in a prosecution under Section 494 I.P.C, it must be proved that the subsequent marriage is also a valid marriage but for the fact that it is bigamous .

(3.) In the instant case, going by the averments in the complaint, there has only been a registered document of marriage executed between the petitioner herein and the co-accused. In these circumstances, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings. This, in short, is the prayer.