A power of attorney holder can file a complaint representing the aggrieved person, and the complaint is maintainable. However, misjoinder of accused and charges can lead to the quashing of the complaint, and the complainant may be given the liberty to file fresh individual complaints for specific offences if there are sufficient materials for the same.

"Can a power of attorney holder of an aggrieved person file a complaint in respect of matrimonial offences under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code?" This is one of the important questions to be dealt with in this case.

2. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.27285 of 2010 are the accused 1, 3 and 4 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.27329 of 2010 (Respondents 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.No.27285 of 2010) are the accused 2 and 5 in C.C.No.303 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore. This case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the first respondent in Crl.O.P.No.27285 of 2010, who is the sole respondent in Crl.O.P.No.27329 of 2010. These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.303 of 2010. Since these two petitions relate to one and the same case, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order.

3. The complaint before the lower Court has been filed by one Mr.K.Murugesh through his power of attorney holder Dr.A.R.Kasilingam. The complainant Mr.Murugesh is the husband of the first accused. The marriage between them was solemnised on 22.08.1999 at Trichy. After the marriage, the complainant and the first accused had temporarily moved to United States of America and continued to reside there as husband and wife. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 30.09.2000. During the birth of the child, the first accused had to undergo a surgery, by which, her uterus was removed. Thus, she was unable to bear any more child. But the first accused was longing for a male child. The complainant tried to persuade her not to opt for a male child and to be happy with the female child as a lovable mother. But she was not satisfied with the same. Because of the insistence of the first accused, the complainant agreed to have a male child through a surrogate mother.

4. It is alleged that both the complainant and the first accused agreed to fix a surrogate mother in India for the purpose of having a male child. Under the guise of fixing a surrogate mother, it is alleged that the first accused came down to India on three different occasions. While she came down here, the A.T.M. Card relating to the account of the complainant was also taken by her. The complainant was under the belief that she had gone to India on all the three occasions genuinely for the purpose of fixing a surrogate mother and also to have a health check-up. But, unfortunately, later on, it came to light that while in Tamil Nadu, she had contacted the second accused, who was her erstwhile boyfriend at Coimbatore. It also came to light that she started living adulterous life with him. On one occasion, the first accused and the second accused were found together in an apartment and they were caught red handed by the father of the complainant. It is also stated that on one occasion, they had gone to Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital and Iswarya Fertility Centre, Kovai, wherein, they had undergone several biological and psychological tests for fertilisation so as to beget a child through a surrogate mother. The medical records furnished by Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital and Iswarya Fertility Centre, Coimbtaore revealed that the first and second accused got married. In the medical record, they had described themselves as husband and wife.

5. It is further alleged that it came to light that the first accused had gone for an illegal marriage with the second accused on 06.07.2008. The accused Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the first accused and the fifth accused is the wife of the second accused. It is alleged that the accused 3 to 5 abetted the said bigamous marriage between the accused 1 and 2. It is also alleged in the compliant that the marriage ceremony undergone by the accused 1 and 2 is fraudulent and the same would not amount to a lawful marriage. Thus the said act also amounts to an offence under Section 496 I.P.C. It is further alleged that the accused 1 and 2 live an adulterous