Crl. Misc. No.M-27428 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-27428 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 11-07-2011 Bir Singh and others ....Petitioners VERSUS Santosh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Navneet Singh , Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the criminal complaint no. 86 IC of 2006 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom. On 17.9.2010, notice of motion was issued by this Court noticing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that marriage of petitioner no.1 took place with the respondent in 2000 which was dissolved on 9.9.2003 by virtue of decree of divorce which was ex parte. The said decree was confirmed when an application was moved by Smt. Santosh under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner no.1 remarried in the year 2005 after the divorce had been confirmed. A complaint was preferred by the present respondent on 23.8.2006 under the provisions of Section 494 IPC alleging that petitioner no.1 had remarried during the subsistence of the marriage with her and thus prayed for initiation of proceedings against him. No one is present on behalf of the respondent despite service . Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to proceed to evaluate the Crl. Misc. No.M-27428 of 2010 (O&M) 2 material before it to answer the prayer which has been made before it under Section 494 IPC which has been extracted herebelow:- “Section 494: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife:- Whosoever, 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 extent to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Exceptions:- This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by the court of competent jurisdiction. Nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the lief of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge. “ If the uncontroverted facts of the case which are also substantiated by some material on record are to be seen it is evident that the petitioner no.1 got remarried in the year 2005 after the divorce was granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the year 2003 and the application moved by the respondent for setting aside ex parte divorce was also Crl. Misc. No.M-27428 of 2010 (O&M) 3 dismissed against which no further proceedings have been initiated by her. It is thus evident that even if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be correct, then also it do not constitute any offence and are not likely to fructify into conviction of the petitioners. Therefore there seems to be an abuse of the process of law. It is settled proposition of law that under Section 482 Cr.P.C Courts can step in to stall the abuse of the process of law and interfere if it appears from a bare perusal of the averments made in the complaint that the same even if accepted do not constitute any offence. Having regard to the aforesaid, the instant petition is accepted and criminal complaint no. 86 IC of 2006 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua all the petitioners. July 11, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge