1. The petitioners who are accused in C.C.No.124 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District, have filed the above Criminal Original Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.124 of 2005.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Criminal Original Petition are set out below:

The complainant/respondent herein is the first wife of the first petitioner; second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is alleged to be the second wife of the first petitioner. The respondent filed a Private Complaint against the petitioners herein alleging that the first petitioner has married the third petitioner in the presence of the second petitioner on 22. 2005 at Ramagiri Vaaleeswaran Temple, Andhra Pradesh State. On the basis of the said Complaint and the sworn statement of the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam has taken cognizance of the Complaint for the offence punishable under Section 494, IPC. Being aggrieved by that the petitioners have filed above Criminal Original Petition.

3. Mr. N. Sudharsan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the Complaint for the offence under Section 494, IPC since the allegations contained in the sworn statement do not disclose the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 494, IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent has not produced any evidence to show the form of marriage alleged to have been gone through by the third petitioner with the first petitioner; it is not alleged that the essential ceremonies for performing a valid marriage were performed or followed at the time of performance of second marriage and the details of the time and the name of the witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged second marriage had also not been stated and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 494 have been made out.

4. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Prasanna Kumar v. Dhanalaxmi, 1989 Crl.L.J. 1829, wherein in para No.7, it is laid down as under:

"7 It is also to be pointed out that in the Complaint, which had been given long after, the details of the place where exactly the marriage took place and on what date the marriage took place have not been mentioned. Apart from mentioning that the marriage was performed secretly in the presence of the other accused and some people close to the accused, there is no indication whatsoever as to who had witnessed the occurrence.

No doubt learned counsel for the first respondent-complainant submitted that one Pakirisami and another Ramakrishnan witnesses 1 and 2 respectively are the witnesses who witnessed the marriage. Even the said fact of their witnessing the marriage had not been mentioned in the Complaint. There is also no mention in the Complaint in what manner the marriage took place. Admittedly, the parties are Hindus. While so the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 494, IPC, have to be mentioned and it is to be pointed out that there should be an allegation that the accused gone through a form of marriage recognized by law and the second respondent whom the first accused is alleged to have married and the parents of the second respondent had knowledge of such marriage of the petitioner with the complainant. It is idle to contend that having regard to the fact that A-1 is already married to the complainant the marriage naturally was performed secretly without mentioning in what form the marriage took place. In a Bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, has to be established, and the admission of the marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage as laid down in the case reported in Kanwalram v. Himachal Pradesh Administra