JANAKIRAMANAND Vs. J PARIMALA VENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon bearing the arguments of Mr. T.S. Arunachalam, Senior Advocate for Mr. K.V. Sridharan, Advocate for the petitioner in Cri. M.P. 12017/87 and for Mr. C.S. Dhanasekaran, Advocate and for the petitioner in Cri. M.P. 12020/87, the Court made the following order:The petitioners, who are respectively accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 182 of 1987 pending before the Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, for offences under sections 494 and 494 read with 109 I.P.C. on a private complaint Instituted by the respondent herein, invoke the inherent powers of this Court order sections 482 and 483 Cr. P.C. to quash the above proceedings.

(2.) Facts briefly are : The respondent preferred a private complaint before the above Court against the petitioners herein (the petitioner in Cri. M.P. No. 12017 of 1987 will hereinafter be referred to as the first petitioner and the petitioner in Cri. M.P. No. 12020 of 1980 will hereinafter be referred to as the second petitioner) for the offences shown above, on the allegation that the first petitioner married the respondent on 19.8.74 as per Hindu Custom and convention and the marriage was duly registered at Pondicherry at Etat Civil on 25-12.1975, that thereafter they lived together as husband and wife and four children were born to them, that the above marriage is subsisting, that the first petitioner persuaded the respondent to execute a power of attorney in favour of the Illango to sell the house belonging to the respondent in Cuddalore representing that with the money they could purchase a new house in Cuddalore itself and that the power was executed on 14.8.87. The further allegation in the complaint is that after the execution of the power, the first petitioner started ill-treating her and forcibly made her sign on several blank papers and stamped papers. Finally on 10.9.1987, the first petitioner took away all the jewels of the respondent and also the jewels which he was wearing and drove her out of the material home. The respondent was residing with her mother. She was looking forward to a reconciliation. However she heard that the first petitioner, during the subsistence of her marriage with him, had married the second petitioner on 1.10.1987 as per Hindu custom and convention at Thiruventhipuram Devanathaswamy Temple. The second petitioner also was aware of the fact that the first petitioner was already married and the marriage was subsisting. The petitioners, therefore, bad committed offences under sections 494 and 494 read with 109 I.P.C. In the complaint, the Executive Officer of the above Devanathaswamy Temple and others have been cited as witnesses.

(3.) Learned Magistrate examined the complainant on oath under Section 202 Cr. P.C The complainant/respondent, white examined on oath, has stated that she married the first petitioner on 19.8-1974 and the marriage was registered, that they lived together for 13 years and four Ions were born to them, that later the 1st petitioner started ill-creating her demanding money from her, that, therefore, she came to her mother's house and on 1/10/1987 the first petitioner had married the second petitioner at Thiruventhipuram Devanathaswamy Temple, that she had produced the certificate for the above marriage In Court and the above marriage was un-lawful and that, therefore, action may be taken.