MADESWARAN ALIAS GANESAMOORTHY Vs. SUGANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/1st accused has filed the above Criminal Original Petition, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C. No.146 of 2006 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sangagiri and quash the same.

(2.) The Respondent/Complainant represented by her father and Natural Guardian has filed the C.C.No.146 of 2006 against the petitioner/1st accused and 10 other accused persons. The ingredients of the complaint is that the petitioner is the husband of the Respondent. Accused No.2 & 3 are parents of 1st petitioner. The 4th accused is the illegal wife of the 1st petitioner. The 5th and 6th accused are the parents of the 4th accused. Other accused persons are relatives of 1st accused and 4th accused. The respondent is living with her father. The complainant and the 1st accused married each other on 29.11.1998. The said marriage was an arranged one. After some time, the 1st accused, on the instigation of his parents filed a petition in H.M.O.P. No.21 of 1999 against the complainant for divorce. The said case was transferred to Namakkal Sub-Court and renumbered as H.M.O.P.No. 137 of 2002. In the relevant time, the 1st accused changed his mind and joined with the complainant and led married life in the complainant's parents house. In the relevant time, the 1st accused did not proceed with the divorce case against the complainant and hence the divorce petition was dismissed. In the relevant time, the accused and the complainant had sexual intercourse, when they were living in the complainant's parents house. Under the circumstances, the 1st accused married the 4th accused for which other accused supported the marriage. The said marriage was conducted on 13.11.2005 at Murugan Temple, Pallipalayam. Regarding the marriage the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused persons. Further, the complainant lodged the complaint before the All Women Wing Police Station. The Inspector of Police conducted enquiry on the said complaint when the 1st accused gave a statement stating that he will not marry second time. Further, the accused submitted a decree in H.M.O.P.No. 51 of 2004 before the said Inspectress of Police, stating that the respondent had filed a divorce case against the accused and got divorce from the principal Sub-Court, Erode. The copy of the decree also was produced before the concerned Inspectress of Police. The accused No.1,2 and 3 had fraudulently obtained the said "decree" from the Court. The complainant is not at all a party in the said divorce case. Further, the complainant verified all details regarding H.M.O.P.No. 51 of 2004, but the case was not bonafide and the accused had fraudulently approached the Court and obtained decree. The complainant also had given a legal notice to the accused and a complaint was lodged with the Inspectress of Police to prevent the second marriage. Even then, the marriage was solemnised between the 1st and 4th accused with the help of the other accused. The complaint further alleged that the accused has paid a sum of Rs.2,350/- as hiring charges of Marriage Hall. Hence, the complainant filed a case against accused person on an alleged offence under Section 494 and 109 of IPC and also offence under Rule 17 of Hindu Marriage Act. Supporting the complaint, the complainant had filed 19 documents and mentioned three witnesses.

(3.) Now, the 1st accused/petitioner has filed the above quash petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Sangagiri and quash the same. In the said petition, the petitioner's contention is that he has admitted that he married the respondent Suganya, Daughter of Rajamanickam on 29.11.1998. Further, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No. 21 of 1999, against the respondent herein for divorce, before the Sub-Court, Sangagiri, which was later transferred to the Sub-Court, Namakkal and renumbered as H.M.O.P.No. 137 of 2002. The respondent herein has filed H.M.O.P.No. 51 of 2004 against the petitioner before the Sub-Court, Erode praying for divorce and the same was allowed after due enquiry. Further, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent herein had filed the said petition with the full knowledge and connivance of her parents. Further, about one year and seven months from the divorce order, the petitioner married one Indrayani, who is ranked 4th accused in the above said C.C.No.146 of 2006. After that, the respondent and her parent started to give problems like complaint and legal notice etc. Further, the petitioner alleges that the said complaint is a false one. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondent herein was divorced as per order passed in H.M.O.P.No. 51 of 2004 by the principal Subordinate Court, Erode dated 30.04.2004. The said Judicial order is in force. As such, the petitioner has no encumbrance to marry second time. Hence, the above complaint is not maintainable.