1. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.22741 of 2013 are arrayed as A1 to A5 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.31316 of 2013 are arrayed as A6 to A9 in C.C.No.8733 of 2007 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint in C.C.No.8733 of 2007 against the petitioners as well as the other accused before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 496, 497, 406, 177, 182, 120B, 34, 109, 112 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the respondent/complainant in C.C.No.8733 of 2007 is that though the first accused was already married to one Sujit Das on 24.08.2004 and an exparte decree of divorce between them was passed on 10.05.2005, the marriage between the complainant and the first accused was solemnized on 02.03.2005, which is during subsistence of the first marriage and that in fact, the earlier marriage of the first accused with the said Sujit Das was totally suppressed by all the accused with a criminal intention to deceit the complainant. According to him, the first accused also committed the offence of adultery and that all the accused individually and collectively committed the offences under Section 494, 495, 496, 497, 406, 177, 182, 120B, 34, 109, 112 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr.C.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that since the first marriage between the complainant and the first accused was annulled by a court of law, it has to be considered as though it is completely erased legally, and that it declares that the marriage never technically existed and was never valid. Therefore, he would contend that on the date of the 2nd marriage, there was no valid marriage and hence, the first accused cannot be prosecuted. It is also his contention that since there is an express bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Metropolitan Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 177 and 182 Indian Penal Code. He would further contend that there are no averments in the complaint about the role played by the other accused for committing the offences as alleged by the respondent/complainant. He would therefore, contend that the entire proceedings in C.C.No.8733 of 2007 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would contend that the first marriage between the first accused and Sujit Das was solemnized on 24.08.2004 and the decree of divorce was passed only on 10.05.2005 and all the accused suppressed this fact and solemnized the marriage of the first accused and the respondent/ complainant on 02.03.2005. He therefore, contended that all the accused are liable to be punished for the offences as mentioned in the complaint.

6. The petitioners have filed a xerox copy of a portion of the decree of divorce passed by the District Judge, Burdwan. A perusal of the said decree shows that the marriage between the first accused and Sujit Das was annulled under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act 1954. Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act envisages that a marriage, which falls within the purview of Clause (1), (2) and (3) of the Section, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the date of passing of decree of divorce is not produced before this court. However, in the instant case, the specific allegation of the respondent/ complainant is that all the accused suppressed the earlier marriage of the first accused with the said Sujit Das and solemnized their marriage on 02.03.2005 with a criminal intention to defraud him. When there are specific allegations in this regard, the proceedings initiated by the respondent/complainant cannot be quashed. However, as regards the offences under Section 177 and 182, there is an express