SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Mad) 85

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. SETHURAMAN
Prasanna Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Dhanalaxmi and Others - Respondent
Case No : Cr. M.P. No. 12389 of 1987
Decided On : 16 February 1988

Advocates Appeared:K. Shanmugakani, S. J. Jagadev, Advocates.

A complaint must disclose the essential ingredients of the offense charged in order to be maintainable.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - BIGAMY - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - COMPLAINT - SUFFICIENCY - SECTION 494 IPC - SECTION 482 CRPC - SECTION 498A IPC - SECTION 496 IPC - SECTION 120 IPC - SECTION 120A IPC - SECTION 120B IPC - SECTION 34 IPC - SECTION 488 CRPC - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused in a case of bigamy, challenged the proceedings against him, arguing that the complaint did not disclose any offense. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had married a second woman while still married to the complainant, causing her mental and physical distress.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offense of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. It noted that the complaint did not specify the date and place of the alleged second marriage, the form of marriage, or the knowledge of the second woman and her parents about the petitioner's existing marriage. The court also held that the complaint for the offense under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives) was not maintainable as the alleged acts of cruelty occurred before the provision came into force. Additionally, the court found that the complaint for the offense under Section 496 IPC (marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage) was not maintainable as it related to the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the second woman, not the complainant.

Issues: 1. Whether the complaint disclosed the essential ingredients of the offense of bigamy under Section 494 IPC? 2. Whether the complaint for the offense under Section 498A IPC was maintainable? 3. Whether the complaint for the offense under Section 496 IPC was maintainable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The essential ingredients of the offense of bigamy under Section 494 IPC are: - A valid and subsisting first marriage. - A second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. - Knowledge of the second marriage by the second spouse and her parents. - The complaint did not specify the date and place of the alleged second marriage, the form of marriage, or the knowledge of the second woman and her parents about the petitioner's existing marriage. Therefore, the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offense. 2. The offense under Section 498A IPC came into force on 25-12-1983. The alleged acts of cruelty occurred before this date. Therefore, the complaint for the offense under Section 498A IPC was not maintainable. 3. The offense under Section 496 IPC relates to a marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had married a second woman while still married to the complainant. This offense relates to the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the second woman, not the complainant. Therefore, the complaint for the offense under Section 496 IPC was not maintainable.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner and the other accused in the case.

Judgment :-

The petitioner is the first accused in C.C. No. 13217 of 1987 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. This is a petition praying to call for the records in C.C. No. 13217 of 1987 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and to quash the said proceedings.

2. According to the petition, the first respondent Dhanalaxmi has filed the complaint against the petitioner and five others for offences under sections 494, 496 and 498-A, I.P.C. alleging that she had married the petitioner at Thanjavur on 29-4-1979, and there are two issues a girl aged about 9 years and a boy aged about 5 years, and that she lived with the petitioner until the year 1982, and their last residence was at No. 54 Vellala St. Ayyanavaram, Madras, and she was finally deserted in March 1983. Further, according to her, the petitioner demanded dowry by way of jewels and cash before the marriage and after the marriage and also demanded scooter, television, fridge, etc., and she was treated cruelly. She filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P. 426 of 1983 and it was withdrawn and later O.P. 340 of 1985 was failed on the file of the City Civil Court, for divorce and while the case was pending, she had occasion to go to petitioner's house with her father and his friends as suggested by the Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, to talk about the compromise and on that occasion that petitioner was not in the house but the second respondent herein was present in the house and when enquired she informed that she is the wife of the petitioner and on further enquiries the first respondent herein learnt that the petitioner married the second respondent herein and the marriage was performed in the presence of the other accused and some people close to the accused. The second respondent also delivered a child and the birth of the child had been concealed by giving false name and address. In the sworn statement she has mentioned about the demanding of the dowry six months after the marriage. Further it has been mentioned in the complaint that the first respondent came to know that the marriage was performed secretly.

3. The learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the offences under S. 498A, 112, 114, 120 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and according to the petitioner the complaint and the sworn statement did not disclose any offence. The complaint has been failed since she has filed the petition for divorce in the year 1985 on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and the complaint has been filed out of spite and under such circumstances, it has been prayed that the entire records of the case has to be called for and the proceedings to be quashed.

4. The petitioner who is A-1 in the case has come forward with this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. soon after the receipt of the summons. The petitioner is working as a Sub-Inspector in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Madras City at Egmore. A perusal of the copy of the complaint discloses that the complaint had been given for alleged offences under sections 494, 496 and 498-A I.P.C. against A-1 (the petitioner herein) and under sections 112, 114 and 120 I.P.C. against A-1 to A-6 read with Sections 120-B and 34 I.P.C. Before proceeding further it could be pointed out that as regards the offence under S. 496 I.P.C., rightly it is alleged that it was committed by A-1. But at the same time it is to be noted that certainly the said offence, even according to the complaint, may not be against the complainant, the first respondent, perhaps it is meant that the said offence had been committed against the second respondent herein whom the petitioner has been alleged to have married. If it is the case of the first respondent-complainant that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under S. 496 IPC, with regard to the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent, the complaint for the offence under S. 494 IPC cannot be maintained sin




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top