MURUGESAN Vs. RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused before the trial Court have come forward with the instant petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 5 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

(2.) THE facts which had led to the institution of the instant proceedings briefly can be stated as follows:- THE first petitioner Murugesan had a brother by name Paramasivam. THE complainant before the trial Court Ramalakshmi was the wife of Paramasivam. In the lawful wedlock between Paramasivam and Ramalakshmi, a child was also born to them. Later, on 12.2.1994, Paramasivam died, leaving behind his young widow and the infant. Ramalakshmi wanted to marry the first petitioner Murugesan. But, he was not willing for such course. According to the first petitioner, he was forcibly taken to a place known as Sankarankovil on 27.3.1995 and was forced to sign in some papers and also to exchange garlands with Ramalakshmi in a temple. He was kept inside a room which was locked from outside. Ten days after such confinement, he managed to escape on 5.4.1995 and he had also preferred a complaint to Rajapalayam Police in this regard. THE first Petitioners filed H.M.O.P. No. 36 of 1995 on the file of the Sub-Court, Srivilliputhur to declare the forced marriage of the first petitioner with Ramalakshmi as null and void. Ramalakshmi also filed H.M.O.P. No. 1 of 1997 for restitution of conjugal rights. In H.M.O.P. No. 36 of 1995, an ex parte order was passed declaring the marriage as null and void. But, that ex parte order was set aside and both the H.M.O.Ps. are now pending enquiry on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. Whileso, Ramalakshmi has preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil alleging that while the marriage with her is in subsistence. Murugesan has taken a second wife on 7.12.1998. She had preferred the complaint against Murugesan, his wife Selvi and his other relatives. THE learned Judicial Magistrate took the complaint on file under Section 494, I.P.C. Now, the accused have come forward with the instant petition to quash the proceedings alleging that the complaint does not disclose necessary ingredients to be established under Section 494, I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned Counsel cited an authority reported in Nammalwar and others v. Govindaraju, 1991 L.W. (Cri.) 49 where His Lordship T.S.Arunachalam, J. as he then was has held as under:- "Turning to the facts in these petitions, the respondent has stated that while proceeding in a bus on 17.3.1985 from Virudhunagar to Nadayaneri, he saw accused 1 and 2 seated together in very close proximity and conversing between themselves, the shocked respondent followed them and found both of them entering into the house of the first accused. THE enquiries made by him later at Nadayaneri revealed that the first accused had married the second accused, at Sankarapperi Village, actively abetted by the other accused, though his (AD) marriage with the respondent'ssister was in subsistence. Enquiry by the respondent at Sankarapperi where the bigamous marriage was alleged to have been performed, confirmed the information he had obtained at Nadayaneri. THErefore, on these allegations, if the trial Magistrate was satisfied that issue of process was necessary, since there was sufficient ground to proceed, in the light of the law laid down in Dhanalakshmi'scase, AIR 1990 SC 494 this Court will not be justified in exercising its powers under S.482, Crl.P.C. to quash the pending proceedings. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent agree that as far as the sixth accused (third petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 8403 of 1985) is concerned there is no prima facie allegation to bring her within the mischief of S.107, I.P.C. All that has been stated in the complaint is that she distributed sandal-paste, kunkumam and flower to the invitees. This act of the sixth accused, not being a vital part in a bigamous marriage, and even if taken at its face value, will not indicate intentional aid and active participation in the bigamous marriage, the proceedings in C.C. No. 895 of 1985) pending as against her, are liable to be quashed. In respect of the other petitioners, the prosecution cannot be halted in its track and will have to be allowed to surv ive to reach its logical termination. Sufficiency of evidence will have to be canvassed before the trial court." THE question whether or not the acts of petitioners 3 to 16 would bring them within the mischief of Section 494, IPC. has to be considered, depends upon the question whether their partition was intentional. In the case reported cited supra, there is nothing to show that at the time when marriage took place, it was brought to the knowledge of the gatherings that the accused was already married. It is possible that without knowing the fact that the accused has been already married, they may have participated.