MUTHAMMAL Vs. MARUTHATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioners/accused 3 to 8 to quash the second charge framed against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 11 of 1980 pending on his file.

(2.) IT appears from the facts of the case that the respondent herein filed C.C. No. 11 of 1980 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore under Section 494 read with Section 109, I.P.C against accused 1 and 2 and the petitioners herein. The contention of the wife/respondent was, that while her marriage was subsisting with the first accused, the first accused married the second accused and, therefore, the first accused is liable to be punished under section 494, I.P.C. That apart, it was contended that the third accused who is the mother of the first accused, the fourth accused who is the elder brother of the first accused, accused 5 and 6 are either sister-in-law sisters of the first accused and accused 7 and 8 who are the sisters and who are all the petitioners herein, have abetted in the offence committed by the first accused and hence they are also liable to be punished under Section 109 and 494, I.P.C. Evidence was left in by the complainant/respondent herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Apart from P.W. 1, P.Ws 2 and 3 were also examined. Charges were framed by the Magistrate not only against the first and the second accused but also against the petitioners/accused 3 to 8 herein.

(3.) FROM the evidence of P.W. 2, who is said to be an eye-witness to the second marriage and from the evidence of P.W. 3, it is clear that, it is only the sixth accused (4th petitioner herein) and there is nothing to show that the petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have intentionally aided or instigated the first accused in committing the offence of Section 494, I.P.C. It was also argued that there is no specific evidence either of P.W. 2 or of P.W. 3 to show, as to what part the petitioners have played by which, they can be said that they have abetted in the offence committed by the first and the second accused. In short, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that from the oral evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3 adduced in his case. A case as against the petitioners with reference to abetment cannot be said to have been made out in so far as the petitioners 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are concerned and the trial Judge has erred in law in charge-sheeting the petitioners for the offence of abetment.