K. VENUGOPAL Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case stands listed today for admission. As there is no representation for the revision petitioner, this Court deems it fit to pass an order after going through the records.

(2.) THE petitioner in the revision case had been arraigned as accused No.2 in a criminal case instituted on a private complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar in C.C.No.108 of 2005. The revision petitioner figures as the second accused in the said calendar case. One Sridhar, figures as accused No.1 and Chandra and Anusha Priya figure as accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively. The accused Nos.2 and 3 Venugopal and Chandra are the parents of Sridhar, who figures as first accused. Contending that she is the legally wedded wife of the first accused Sridhar; that during the subsistence of her marriage with the first accused Sridhar, the first accused contracted a bigamous marriage with the fourth accused Anusha Priya with the help of the parents of the first accused and that thus the first accused Sridhar committed an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., whereas, the other accused persons committed an offence punishable under Section 494 r/w Section 109 I.P.C., the respondent in the revision petition, namely Usha Rani preferred a private complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. Following the procedure prescribed for taking cognizance of offences on a private complaint and also taking into account the fact that the offence alleged is not a cognizable offence and the same could be taken cognizance only on the complaint of the wife or the other persons, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar decided to take cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses produced by the complainant. Upon considering the complaint and the sworn statements, the learned Judicial Magistrate decided to try the case as a warrant case and assigned C.C.No.108 of 2005 and issued process.

(3.) IN support of his prayer for discharge, the revision petitioner herein made the following averments before the trial Court: