G SARADA Vs. V GOPALASWAMY RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the Sessions Judge, Cihittoor, dismissing a revision petition filed before him against an order of discharge made by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirupati, in a case of alleged bigamy. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the respondent herein had married her on 1st May, 1963, and inasmuch as he had a first wife living at that time, the marriage with the petitioner was void in law and as such the respondent was guilty of an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code. She further alleged that the respondent had represented to her and her parents that he was unmarried and had remained a bachelor because of misunderstandings between him and his father, and that misled by such representations, the petitioner's parents had agreed to give her in marriage to the respondent and she had agreed to marry him. She further averred that but for the said representation by the respondent, she would never have married him, nor would her parents have agreed to celebrate her marriage. She further averred that because of this concealment,, the respondent was also guilty of an offence under section 495, Indian Penal Code,, which is an aggravated form of the offence of bigamy. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court below have found on an appreciation of the evidence of the petitioner given as P.W. 1 and the statement of the accused, that the allegation by the petitioner that the respondent had concealed from her his previous marriage, was false. Both the Courts below have held that an offence under section 495, Indian Penal Code, was not made out and consequently the accused-respondent was entitled to a discharge. The accused himself admitted at the trial that he had married the petitioner,, but stated that he had not concealed the fact that he was already married but had actually told the parents of the petitioner that he was already married and the petitioner also knew about it.

(2.) The Courts below were manifestly wrong in holding that because the aggravated circumstance that the respondent had concealed the factum of the first marriage from the petitioner had not been established, the respondent was entitled to a discharge. On his own admission, he is clearly guilty of an offence under section 494,. Indian Penal Code, which says that whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Now, on his own showing, the respondent had married again during the lifetime of his first wife and therefore he will be guilty of an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code. Section 209 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, says that in an inquiry in a Sessions case, if the Magistrate finds that there are not sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial, be may discharge him, but subject to the condition that if it appears to the Magistrate that such person should be tried before himself or by some other Magistrate, he shall proceed accordingly. On the finding of the trial Court, an offence under section 495, Indian Penal Code, was not made out, but the Magistrate should have framed a charge under section 494, Indian Penal Code, and proceeded with the trial. Therefore, the reason given by both the Courts below for discharging the respondent, is unsound.

(3.) However, there is an insuperable obstacle in the way of the petitioner and that, is, section 198, Criminal Procedure Code, which lays down inter alia that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 494, Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence. So the question in the present case is whether the petitioner can be said to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 198, Criminal Procedure Code. There is no indication in the Criminal Procedure Code as to who should be considered as a person aggrieved, but it is obvious that the word " aggrieved " is intended to refer to a person injured by a second marriage. In the present case, if the petitioner's allegation that the respondent had tricked her into marrying him without disclosing that he had a wife living, were true, then she would certainly be an aggrieved person..