IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a petitioner cannot claim innocence without evidence, and the prosecution's allegations warranted a trial under Sections 494 and 498-A IPC.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the Final Report and further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.987/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad. The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, in detail. Perused the relevant materials available.

3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the 1st accused married the defacto complainant, after suppressing his earlier marriage solemnized six months before with CW13. The further allegation is that, accused Nos.2 to 5, also solemnized the said marriage, after having knowledge of the earlier marriage of the 1st accused. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 494, 495, 498(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has no knowledge regarding the earlier marriage of the 1st accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given emphasis to the statement of CW13, the first wife of the 1st accused, stating that relatives of the 1st accused did not participate in the marriage between CW13 and the 1st accused, though her parents and relatives participated in the marriage. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is innocent and he has no knowledge regarding the first marriage, he participated in the second marriage of the 1st accused, who is brother of the petitioner, bonafidely. Therefore, none of the offences would attract against him. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC is without following the procedure and the same is illegal. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as per the statement of CW13, the photographs of the marriage between the 1st accused and CW13 were forwarded to the petitioner, after the present marriage and therefore the knowledge of the petitioner in the matter of first marriage is not made out from the prosecution records. Therefore, the quashment of the proceedings as against the petitioner is liable to be allowed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant strongly opposed quashment of the proceedings, mainly urging that all the accused are well aware of the earlier marriage of the 1st accused with CW13. He also pointed out that, as per the statement of CW13, though it has been stated that the relatives of the 1st accused did not participate in the marriage between the 1st accused and CW13, the same is a matter of evidence. Therefore, quashment sought for is not liable to be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor also shared the argument of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, while opposing quashment. He also would submit that the matter shall go for trial.

7. Going through the statements of the defacto complainant and her mother as well as that of CW14, knowledge of the first marriage of the 1st accused with CW13 is known to all the relatives including the other accused and the petitioner herein. In view of the matter, it could not be held that the petitioner, who is the 3rd accused, is innocent and no materials available, prima facie, to see his involvement in this crime. To the contrary, prima facie, involvement of the petitioner is specifically made out warranting trial against him also.

8. Regarding bar in the matter of taking cognizance for the offence under Section 494 of IPC, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, in the decision reported in Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada [(2012) 6 SCC 353 : 2012 CrLJ 2234], the Apex Court held that, a conjoint