M MURUGAM Vs. RANJINI MURUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 2175 of 1980 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The prosecution has been initiated against him and two others, on a private complaint preferred by the respondents for offences under Section 120B read with Section 494, Indian Penal Code, and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The second accused in the case, Vimala, was the erstwhile wife of the third accused, C.G. Rangabashyam.

(2.) ON 19 -4 -1979, the respondent filed a complaint against these three accused and one another for offence under Section 120B read with Section 494, Indian Penal Code, and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 1417 of 1979, on the file of the same Magistrate. The allegation in the complaint was, that the petitioner had married the second accused (Vimala) on 26 -3 -1978 at Tirumalai, during the subsistence of his marriage with the respondent. The third accused C.G. Rangabashyam, filed a petition under Section 482, Crl. P.C. in this court, numbered as Crl. M.P. No. 2233 of 1979, to quash the proceedings therein. By an order dated 25 -2 -1980 (See C.G. Rangabhasyam v. Mrs. Ranjini Murugan, 1980 LW (Crl.) 174 this court quashed the proceedings against the' third accused in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979. Subsequently, the petitioner and the second accused (Vimala) filed a petition for discharge before the trial Magistrate. The trial Magistrate accepted the plea made by the accused and directed their discharge by an order dated 20 -6 -1980. The respondent did not choose to take up the matter further in the higher forum and, therefore, the first complaint filed by her against accused 1 to 3 and another got terminated on 20 -6 -1980. Though details are not available, it is conceded by both the counsels that the fourth accused in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979 was also discharged;

(3.) ON 22 -3 -1980, the respondent filed the present complaint against the petitioner, Vimala and C.G. Rangabashyam, who were accused 1 to 3 in the prior prosecution as well. The allegation in this complaint is that the petitioner married the second accused, Vimala on 13 -11 -1978 at Tirumalai. The respondent did not choose to implicate the fourth accused in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979, in this prosecution. The averments in the complaint disclose that on 19 -8 -1978, the marriage between accused 2 and 3, had been annulled by the court.