IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No. 21203 of 2007 and M.P. 1 of 2007 1. Gnanambal 2. Geetha 3. Shivakumar 4. Ramalingam 5. Malliga 6.Arulmozhi ... Petitioners/Accused 3 to 8 Versus Shripriya ... Respondents/Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No. 85 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.C.D.Johnson For Respondent : No appearance ORDER The petitioners/Accused 3 to 8 has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No. 85 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District and quash the same. 2. The respondent/complainant has filed the criminal complaint against 8 accused persons for an alleged offence under Sections 494, 494 r/w 109 of IPC. 3. The ingredients of the complaint is that the complainant married one Kumaresan/the 1st accused herein, on 13.03.2003 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the accused-1 was given 50 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.57,000/- as cash and further other household articles for about Rs.2 lakhs. After marriage the complainant was living with the 1st accused along with his mother, accused No.3, his sister, accused No.4, Sister's husband, accused No.5, as joint family. Then the complainant became pregnant and for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ceremonial function, she went to her father's home. During this time, the 1st accused developed an illicit affair with the 2nd accused and started to ignore her. Then the complainant went to her father's home, for her deliver. Even after the birth of the child, the 1st accused did not bother to visit her or take her back to his house. The complainant's father along with a few friends effected a compromise and the complainant went to the 1st accused house again, after a few days, the 1st accused, supported by accused 3,4 and 5 demanded 25 sovereigns of gold and Rs.4 Lakhs cash to buy a house, tortured and sent her forcibly to her father's house. Her father also did not make her feel welcome and so she along with her child again went back to the 1st accused place on 29.10.2006, but accused No.1 along with accused 3,4 and 5 kicked her and sent her out. So, she lodged a complaint before All Women Police Station, Vellore. After the police enquired the 1st accused on 08.11.2006, the 1st accused gave a false promise that he would live in a peaceful manner with the complainant, but he did not do so. On the contrary, the 1st accused again started to threaten her and insisted that he would live with her only if she brought the dowry. So, again on 10.11.2006, the complainant gave a complaint to the All Women Wing Police Station, Vellore. The police filed a case against the accused 1,3,4 and 5 for an alleged offence under Prevention of Dowry Act and lodged the 1st accused in prison. Due to this the 1st accused somehow wanted to take revenge on the complainant. 4. Hence, the 1st accused married the 2nd accused on 15.01.2007 at Vellore in the presence of accused 3,4,5 and 6(the father of 2nd accused) and accused 7 (the mother of 2nd accused) and accused 8, family friend of accused No.1. It is further alleged that all the accused supported the 1st accused in the said illegal marriage with the 2nd accused. The complainant has further mentioned two witnesses who have witnessed the said "marriage". Hence the complaint was lodged with the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, who after taking sworn statement of complainant PW1 and examining PW2 and PW3 has taken the case on his file under Sections 494, 494 r/w 109 of IPC against the accused 1 to 8. Summons were also ordered to be issued. 5. At this stage, the petitioners/accused 3 to 8 have filed this quash petition on the below mentioned grounds. They have contended that, (1) The petitioners are in no way connected with the performance of 2nd marriage. (2) Just because the petitioners participated in the marriage cannot make them to be automatically accused persons. (3) Even if Bigamy has been committed, the offence can only be made out as against the 1st accused, as they have not abetted the 1st accused in the said 'marriage'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4) Further, there has been no proof showing that they were instrumental in the performance of the said 2nd marriage and their blessings alone would not amount to abetment of Bigamy. And hence, the petitioners contend the complainant, the above points, has to be quashed. 6. After going through the complaint, and documentary evidence and contents of the petition, the Court is of the view that the main allegation in this case is that the 1st accused married 2nd accused, for which the other accused persons had extended co-operation. The correctness of the allegation can be decided only after conducting a trial. 7. Considering the age of the 1st petitioner/3rd accused, Mrs.Gnanambal, W/O.Kandasamy, her appearance is dispensed with before the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the above Criminal Original Petition is disposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar mps/mra To 1 The Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal District 2 The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy, Namakkal 3 Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal 4 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. Crl.O.P.No. 21203 of 2007 and M.P. 1 of 2007 KSK (CO) SRA 02/11/2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/