K MUNIANDI Vs. M GEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The de-facto complainant is the wife of the first petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner.

(2.) A complaint was given by the de-facto complainant under Section 200 read with 190 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Tiruchirappalli-4, alleging that during the subsistence of the first marriage, the first petitioner has contracted the marriage with the second accused with the active participation and connivance of the petitioners 2 and 3. In pursuant to the said private complaint, a case has been registered and taken on file in C.C.No.5 of 2004 for the alleged offence under Section 494 read with Section 107 of I.P.C. Even though, the case has been taken on file in the year 2004, the same has been kept on file for long time and therefore, the petitioners have filed the present petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations of the second marriage has not been proved by the de-facto complainant in accordance with law and in view of the second marriage is alleged to have been entered into in Thanjavur, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Trichirappalli does not have jurisdiction.

(3.) In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of Kanwal Ram and others Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Administration reported in AIR 1966 SC 614 and submitted that the second marriage must be proved and in the action of such proof, the offence is not justified. The learned counsel also relied upon the Judgment of Santi Deb Berma Vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi reported in AIR 1991 SC 816 for the very same proposition that in the absence of any proof of the accused to show that the second marriage conducted as per custom, the proceedings are liable to the quashed.