C.C. RANGABASHYAM Vs. RANJINI MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE criminal miscellaneous petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2175 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

(2.) THE facts as could be gathered from this rambling petition are as follows: Ranjini Murugan, the first Respondent, is the legally wedded wife of the second Respondent Murugan. The third Respondent, Vimala was the wife of the Petitioner C.G. Rangabashyam (The petition does not specifically say that the third Respondent, Vimala, was the wife of the Petitioner, but reference is made to the dissolution of their marriage). The first Respondent, Ranjini, preferred a complaint before the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate against Respondents 2, 3 and the Petitioner herein under Section 120B read with Section 494, Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Petitioner does not say against whom the complaint was preferred, but this fact is gathered from the copy of the complaint tiled in the case). The Petitioner is arrayed as third accused while Respondents 2 and 3 are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in the complaint. The complaint is to the effect that the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of bigamy on 13th November, 1978, at Tirumalal and therefore, are liable under Section.17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. From the complaint it is seen that in or about January, 1978 the accused, namely, the 2nd and the third Respondents and the Petitioner, entered into a criminal conspiracy to have the second accused, Vimala married to Murugan, the first accused, which is an illegal act. The first accused, Murugan, was pestering his wife, the first Respondent, Ranjini Murugan), to grant him a divorce, but she refused. On 26th March. 1978, the first accused, Murugan and Vimala the second accused, went through a form of marriage at Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Tiruneermalai. It is further seen from the complaint that Murugan procured from the first Respondent, his wife, a letter which she had to give, fearing the life of her husband. Then, after obtaining this letter, the first accused, Murugan was spending most of his time with the second accused, Vimala, and the third accused. The Petitioner, in order to facilitate Murugan and Vimala again marrying consented to the second accused filing a petition for divorce. The petition for divorce was filed by the second accused, Vimala, falsely alleging that she has been deserted by the Petitioner herein who is the third accused. This petition for divorce was not contested, and the allegation was admitted to be true. A decree for divorce was passed by the VI Assistant Civil Judge, Madras, on 19th August, 1978. The complaint further shows that after securing the dissolution of marriage between Vimala and Rangabashyam, the Petitioner herein, the first accused, Murugan and the second accused Vimala again got married at Tirumalai in Andhra Pradesh, with the consent of the Petitioner. The Petitioner now seeks to quash the proceedings which arose out of that complaint.

(3.) RANJINI Murugan, the first Respondent, was married to Murugan, the second Respondent. They were married on 10th May, 1957. Through the wedlock, they have four children, three daughters and a son. The eldest daughter is married and has a child. The other two daughters are aged 18 and 10 years and the son is 17 years of age. Vimala, the third Respondent, and the Petitioner, Rangabashyam, were married to each other and used to make social visits to the house of Respondents 1 and 2. Vimala became a member of the Hypnotic Circle of Madras of which Murugan was the President. The complaint discloses that illicit intimacy developed between Murugan and Vimala and the Petitioner, husband of Vimala connived at it. Respondents 2 and 3 and the Petitioner, according to the complaint, entered into a criminal conspiracy to have Vimala married to Murugan and Murugan married Vimala at Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Tiruneermalai on 26th March 1978. A complaint in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979 before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, appears to have been filed by Ranjini Murugan. A petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979 appears to have been filed by the Petitioner herein and the contention in that petition was that the allegations do not constitute an offence punishable Under Section 494, Indian Penal Code and therefore there could be no criminal conspiracy for the commission of any offence. The proceedings were quashed by Varadarajan, J. as he then was, so far as they relate to the Petitioner, holding that the complaint does not disclose that the third accused has committed any offence. 1 (The present petition for quashing does not furnish any of these particulars). A second complaint was filed in March, 1980 (the date of complaint is omitted in the copy supplied by the Petitioner). It is seen from the second complaint that after the dissolution of the marriage between Vimala and Rangabashyam, Murugan and Vimala again got married with the connivance and consent of Rangabashyam, the Petitioner herein. It is averred in this complaint that from October. 1978, the first accused, Murugan was continuously living at No. 3, Thiruveedhi Amman Koil Street, Madras -28 with Vimala, the second accused and the Petitioner, the third accused and all of them were living under the same roof till about 19th February, 1979 on which date the first Respondent filed a complaint in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979. The complaint finally states that the accused. Murugan, Vimala and Rangabashyam, entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of bigamy on 13th November, 1978 at Tirumalai and that they are liable Under Section 120B read with Section 494, Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) for Respect, and under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the first accused is further made liable under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the second accused under Section 109 read with Section 494, Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act.