PERUMAL PILLAI Vs. M SIVAKAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, eight in number, are the accused in C.C.No.3 of 1989, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. On a private complaint instituted by the respondent, they are being prosecuted for alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss.494, 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent had married the third petitioner according to Hindu rites on 45.1986, at Velli Thambala Kattalai Thirumana mandapam, in Vadiveeswaram village in Kannyakumari District. The second petitioner is the sister of the third Petitioner, while the first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. 8th petitioner is alleged to have married the third petitioner on 27.3.1988, at Madurantakam in Chengalpattu District, while the marriage of the third petitioner with the respondent was in subsistence. It is the case of the complainant that the other petitioners conspired with petitioners 1 to 3 in arranging for the bigamous marriage between the third petitioner and the eighth petitioner. The complaint of the respondent show that after her marriage with the third petitioner she was taken to Cheyyur in Chengalpattu District, where her husband was running a tea stall. Her husband did not treat her with affection. Petitioners 1 and 2 joined her husband in ill treating and torturing her. She was beaten and forced to starve. They made her to part with her jewels one after another, in the guise of settling the loans they had obtained in connection with her marriage. They further demanded from the respondent Rs.10,000/- for arranging the marriage of the niece of the second petitioner. When the respondent expressed her inability, petitioners 1 to 3 not only ill-treated her, but also beat her. The respondent was then pregnant and apprehending that she may collapse, petitioners 1 to 3 admitted her in the hospital. Respondent's mother nursed her and a child was born on 6.6.1987. Not only the third petitioner did not visit even to have a look at his child, but also refused to take her back to the matrimonial told, inspite of the efforts taken by her parents. When medial ors intervened, the third petitioner demanded Rs.10,000/- as condition precedent, to facilitate the return of the respondent to his house, failing which he would enter into a second marriage. The complaint further stales, that the jewels of the complainant were misappropriated. On the averments in the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences aforestated, after recording the sworn statement of the respondent.

(2.) In this petition preferred under S.482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of court, Mr. K. Asokan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged the following three contentions:

(3.) On these contentions, I have heard Mr. S.V.K. Thampi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. He contended that to facilitate cognizance if the averments in the complaint, disclosed the offences alleged, that would be sufficient and hence the first ground urged cannot be upheld. On the second ground, he fairly slated that in respect of two different transactions, a single complaint has been filed and, therefore, the respondent should be given an opportunity to split up her complaint. The present prosecution could be restricted, to offences punishable under Ss.498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, while a fresh complaint on the same facts could be instituted by the respondent, against all the petitioners, before the same Magistrate to be tried along with C.C. No. 3 of 1989. On the last contention, submitted that the provisions of S.182(2) Cr.P.C. would furnish jurisdiction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil to take cognizance of the offence of bigamy, since the respondent was residing permanently within the jurisdiction of the said Magistrate.