AMITKUMAR MULJIBHAI BRAHMBHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have moved this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Cr.P.C.' for brief) for quashing the criminal complaint inter alia lodged against them by respondent No. 2 herein in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad charging all the accused including the petitioners named therein as accused Nos. 3 and 4 with the offence punishable under Sec. 494 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the I.P.C.' for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are not many and not much in dispute. Respondent No. 2 claims to have married one Mukeshkumar Chhatrasinh some 7 years ago. According to her, during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, he contracted a second marriage with one Gitaben Bhailalbhai Barot who is arraigned as accused No. 5 in the complaint. According to respondent No. 2, the other accused including the mother of the husband and the father of accused No 5 and the present petitioners and one Ratilal Ishwarbhai abated the commission of the offence by the husband of respondent No. 2. With these allegations, she lodged one complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad. It came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 664 of 1991. It appears that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against all the accused including the present petitioners. The present petitioners have invoked the powers of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr. P. C. for quashing the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 as aforesaid qua them on the ground that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence by them.

(3.) A copy of the complaint is annexed as Annexure 'A' to this petition. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos. 3 and 4. It appears that they have been roped in on the ground that they were present at the time of the second marriage. It may be mentioned that the complaint merely mentions that these petitioners knew that the marriage between the complainant and accused No. 1 was subsisting at the time of the second marriage. It is nowhere suggested in the complaint that these petitioners were present at the time of the complainant's marriage with accused No. 1 at the relevant time. It is difficult at this stage to attribute the knowledge of the first marriage to the present petitioners. Besides, as aforesaid, the present petitioners are charged with the abatement of bigamy merely on the ground that they were present at the time of the second marriage. A vague allegation is made in the complaint that they directly or indirectly brought about the second marriage of accused No. 1 with accused No. 5.It would be difficult to fasten any criminal liability to these petitioners only on the strength of such vague allegation and on their mere presence at the time of the second marriage.