P MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.61 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate~V, Salem.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are totally nine accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as 1 to 8. The case against the ninth accused was split up. The first petitioner is the wife of the second respondent defacto complainant. The petitioners 2 to 4 are the in~laws of the second respondent and petitioners 5 to 8 are the relatives of the first petitioner. On the private complaint filed by the second respondent forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and crime has been registered in Crime No.389 of 2014 by the first respondent for the offences under Sections 120(b), 420 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report for the offences under Section 495, 120(b), 420 I.P.C. and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.61 of 2015. The crux of the allegation is that the first petitioner got married with the second respondent on 26.11.2012. While being so, at the time of Seemantham of the first petitioner, the second respondent and his family members came to understand that the first petitioner was already got married with one, Alagesan and suppressing the said earlier marriage, the first petitioner along with the other accused persons conspired together and solemnized the marriage with the second respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the said Alagesan happened in the accidental manner and thereafter immediately the first petitioner filed divorce petition in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2011 and it was decreed in her favour and declared that the marriage took place between the first petitioner with the Alagesan was null and void by the decree dated 06.07.2012. When the second respondent approached the petitioner-s family the said fact categorically disclosed to the second respondent and his family members also produced the decree of divorce. Only thereafter the second respondent and his family members convinced and agreed for marriage.