C G RANGABASHYAM Vs. RANJANI MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the third accused in C. C. No. 1417 of 1979 on the file on the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, madras for calling for the records in that case and quashing the proceedings in so far as they relate to the petitioner. According to the private complaint, the petitioner - a Member of the Board of Revenue, Government of Tamil Nadu is the husband of the respondent - second accused. The first respondent in this petition is the complainant. The second respondent is the first accused in the complaint. The fourth respondent is the fourth accused in the complaint. According to the private complaint, the complainant Ranjini Murugan is the lawfully wedded wife of the first accused M. Murugan they having been married on 10th May, 1957, and they have three daughters and a son. The third accused is the husband of the second accused. In view of the wealth and high social status of the first accused and the complainant, accused 2 and 3 and many other couples known to them were in the habit of making social visits to the house of the complainant and the first accused. The second accused became a member of the Hypnotic Circle, Madras, propagating Hypnotism as an Art and Science of which the first accused is the President. In course of time, illicit intimacy developed between accused 1 and 2 with the consent and connivance of the third accused. The first accused used to visit the house of the accused 2 and 3 at no. 3, Thiruveedhi Amman Koil Street, Madras 28 and he was welcomed and encouraged by the accused 2 and 3 to spend his time in their house. In or about january, 1978, accused 1 to 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy for the first accused marrying the second accused. In order to facilitate the same, the first accused began to pressurise the complainant to give him a divorce. But, when she refused to comply with that demand, he began to pressurise her to give her consent to marry the second accused. The complainant understand that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy entered into by the accused 1 to 3, the first accused married the second accused in Ranganathaswami Temple, tiruneermalai, Madras-44 on 26th March, 1978. The first accused was spending most of his time in the company of the second accused from October, 1978 and he has been continuously residing in the house of the accused 2 and 3 where the third accused also continues to live. In order to save embarrassment to accused 1 and 2, the third accused consented to the second accused filing a petition for divorce against him on 17th July, 1978 falsely alleging that the third accused had deserted her since 1967. The third accused admitted that allegation in that proceeding even though it was untrue and both the accused 2 and 3 were living together even at the time of filing of that petition for divorce and a decree for divorce was passed on 19th August, 1978. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the accused 1 to 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of bigamy and they are liable under Sections 120-B and 494 of the I. P. C. , and S. 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is in these terms that the complainant filed a private complaint for the issue of summons to the accused and prosecuting them for the offence of criminal conspiracy and bigamy

(2.) IN this petition for quashing the proceedings in the criminal case so far as the petitioner third accused is concerned two points have been raised and they are : (1) that the allegations made in the petition do not constitute an offence punishable under S. 494, I. P. C. and therefore, there could be no criminal conspiracy for the commission of that offence and (2) that admittedly the second accused was the legally wedded wife of the third accused at the time of the alleged second marriage of the first accused with the second accused and therefore there was valid marriage between the accused 1 and 2 which would become invalid in view of Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955, and therefore the alleged marriage between the accused 1 and 2 is not a bigamous marriage. IN P. V. Raddy v. State. The High Court dismissed an application under Section 484, Cr. P. C. of 1973 holding that the inherent powers possessed by it under that section can be invoked and exercised only when the facts alleged in the complaint if they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged. Their lordships of the Supreme Court have upheld the view of the High Court observing :- "it is now well settled that the High Court does not ordinarily interfere at an interlocutory stage of a criminal proceedings pending in a Subordinate Court. Bearing in mind the well recognised principles of law governing the matter and taking into consideration the nature of the impugned order, we think the High Court was right in declining to grant relief to the appellants. It is also not a matter in which we may legitimately interfere in exercise of our extraordinary powers under Art. 136 of the constitution specially when the case is at its threshold and evidence has still to be adduced as to whether the minerals extracted could or could not be used as major mineral for certain purposes. It must be realised that it is not possible to determine the difficult question of the kind involved in the instant case purely in abstract without relevant evidence bearing on the matter in issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. " * IN the light of that decision, it is necessary to see whether the allegations made in the complaint in the present case do not constitute the offence of bigamy. The alleged conspiracy cannot stand by itself and has to stand or fall with the case of the complainant that the offence of bigamy has been committed by the accused 1 and 2 in the case. IN the complain clear allegation is made about the alleged conspiracy between all the three accused, for, it is stated in paragraph 5 that in or about January, 1978, the accused 1 to 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy that the first accused should marry the second accused and commit an illegal act, and in paragraph 6 of the complaint it is alleged that in pursuance of that criminal conspiracy, entered into by the accused 1 to 3, the first accused married the second accused at Sri ranganathaswami Temple, Tiruneermalai, Madras-44 on 26th March, 1978. The complaint contains allegations as to what happened prior to and after the alleged conspiracy between the accused 1 to 3. About what happened prior to the conspiracy, it is alleged into complaint that the accused 2 and 3 who are husband and wife were in the habit of making social visits to the house of the complainant and the first accused, that the second accused became a Member of the Hypnotic Circle, Madras, of which the first accused is the President, that in the course of time illicit intimacy developed between the accused 1 and 2 with the consent and connivance of the third accused, and that the first accused used to visit the house of the accused 2 and 3 at No. 3, Thiruveethiamman Koil street, Madras-28, where he was welcomed and encourged by the accused 2 and 3 to spend his time. About what happened after the conspiracy and the alleged marriage between the accused 1 and 2 on 26th February, 1978, what is stated in the complaint is that the first accused was spending most of his time in the company of the second accused from October, 1978 by continuously living in the house where the accused 2 and 3 were living, namely, No. 3, Thiruveethiamman koil Street, Madras-28 that in order to save embarrassment to the first and the second accused, the third accused consented to the second accused filling a petition for divorce against him on 17th July, 1978 falsely alleging that the third accused had deserted her since 1967, that the third accused admitted that allegation even though it is untrue and both the accused 2 and 3 were living together even at the time of the institution of the petition for divorce, and that a decree for divorce has been passed on 19th August, 1978, When these allegations were brought to the notice of Mr. N. T. Vanamamalai, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case and it was asked whether it will not be difficult to say, in the face of these allegations that the complaint does not contain allegation from which the offence of criminal conspiracy could be inferred if the necessary evidence is adduced, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not seriously submit that the allegations do not constitute a case of conspiracy, and bigamy provided, the alleged marriage between the accused 1 and 2 is valid in law. I find that the allegations in the complaint would constitute the offences of conspiracy and bigamy provided that the alleged marriage between accused 1 and 2 is valid in law but for S. 17 of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(3.) THE next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Swapna Mukherjee v. Basanta Ranjan 1955 AIR (Cal) 533) : 1955 Crlj 1347) where it has been held that :- "In order that a person may be convicted of an offence of bigamy, under S. 494, the second marriage must be a form of marriage, recognised by law. Otherwise it would be simply an adulterous union and it will not be hit by the provisions of S. 494. "in that case a person who was a born Christian and who was having a Christian wife living married once again a Hindu woman according to the Hindu rites and it has been held that the second marriage between the Christian and the Hindu woman was a void marriage not because of the existence of the Christian wife of the man but because of the fact that there cannot be a valid form of marriage between an Indian Christian and a hindu woman celebrated according to the Hindu rites. It has also been held that as namely, that the second marriage must be void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of the husband or the wife of the first marriage, is not satisfied the Christian husband was entitled to be acquitted of the charge of bigamy under S. 494 of the Indian Penal Code