Misjoinder of offences-It is difficult to separate one offence from another.

Accused 1 to 6 in C.C.No.5967 of 2007 have preferred Criminal Original Petition No.26368 of 2007 and Accused 7 and 8 in the very same Calendar Case have filed Criminal Original Petition No.26381 of 2007 seeking quashment of the aforesaid Criminal Proceedings pending before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai invoking the provision under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The second respondent, who is the husband of the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007, has lodged a complaint before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai seeking to prosecute the petitioners herein for offences punishable under sections 417, 418, 494, 496, 385, 387 read with section 120B and section 506(ii) IPC.

3. In the complaint submitted by the second respondent to the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, it has been alleged that his wife, the first petitioner had got married one Narayanan Venu prasath as early as on 30.11.1998 and registered the same on 30.12.1998 long prior to the marriage of the second respondent with the first petitioner on 9. 2005. All the petitioners in both the criminal original petitions completely suppressed the earlier marriage and arranged the marriage of the first petitioner with the second respondent on 9. 2005 and cheated the second respondent. Petitioners 4 to 6 in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 demanded huge amount from the second respondent during the course of hearing of the criminal case, threatening with acid attack. With the aforesaid allegations, the second respondent has prayed for prosecution of all the petitioners herein.

.4. The learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai referred the aforesaid complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the first respondent Inspector of Police, W25, All Women Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai, who registered the complaint in Crime No.16/2007 under sections 417, 495, 496, 385 and 506(ii) IPC and took up the case for investigation and filed final report before the said Court charging the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 for offences punishable under section 417 I.P.C. (cheating) and section 495 I.P.C. (solemnization of marriage concealing the first marriage), petitioners 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 and both the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26381 of 2007 for offence punishable under section 496 IPC (conducting marriage ceremony fraudulently) and petitioners 4 to 6 in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 for offences punishable under sections 496 (conducting marriage ceremony fraudulently), 385 (putting in fear of injury for committing extortion) and 506(ii) (threat to cause death or grievous hurt) of IPC.

5. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 have contended in the petition seeking quashment that there is no prima facie case made out as against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IPC. There was no solemnization of marriage on 30.11.1998 at V.M.Kalyana Mandapam, Alwarpet, Chennai between the first respondent and Narayanan Venu Prasath as alleged. The registration of the marriage had been allegedly done on 30.12.1998 by producing a fake marriage invitation by Narayanan Venu Prasath. The alleged first marriage had not been performed as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955. The registration of the marriage on 30.12.1998 is of no avail and therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to face the ordeal of Trial for offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IPC. Immediately after the alleged threat of extortion, no complaint was laid by the second respondent. The second respondent has chosen to falsely implicate all the family members of the first petitioner. No offence of cheating can be brought against the first petitioner since there is no legally valid first marriage. The first petitioner has no authority to investigate the offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IP