R. Karuppiah, J.

Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 127 of 2008 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi. The brief facts in a nutshell are that the marriage between the 1st petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 3018 of 2010 namely Nandakumar and the respondent namely Lalitha solemnized on 14.11.1996 and a female child namely Deepikasri was born on 20.8.1997 out of the above said wedlock. The respondent/wife left the matrimonial home on 29.6.2000 due to family dispute. The Husband namely Nandakumar filed a petition for divorce in HMOP No. 92 of 2002 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tiruppur on 1.8.2002. Subsequently, the above said case was transferred to the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore and the case was taken on file as HMOP No. 4 of 2008. During the pendency of the above said proceedings, the respondent/Wife also filed a petition in HMOP No. 59 of 2004 for conjugal rights on 12.4.2004 before the subordinate Court, Tiruppur, which was later transferred to I Additional Court, Coimbatore and taken on file as HMOP No. 3 of 2008. Both sides admitted that divorce petition filed by the husband (i.e.) HMOP No. 4 of 2008 was allowed and divorce was granted as prayed for by the first petitioner/husband on 29.11.2008 and the petition filed by the respondent/wife for conjugal rights in HMOP No. 3 of 2008, on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore was dismissed as not pressed by her on 03.03.2008. All the above said facts are not in dispute.

2. On perusal of the records it is revealed that after disposal of HMOP No. 3 of 2008 filed by the respondent/wife for conjugal rights on 3.3.2008 and during the pendency of divorce petition filed by the first petitioner/husband in HMOP No. 4 of 2008, respondent/wife lodged a private complaint on 7.5.2008 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi wherein, it is stated that the first petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 3018 of 2010/husband (Nandakumar) married second petitioner herein (Renuka) as second wife on 12.3.2008 in front of Vinayakar idol situated in Senniyandavar Temple with the help of other petitioners and therefore, prayed for to punish the petitioners under Sections 494 and 120 (B) IPC.

3. The above said private complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 127 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi and later it was transferred to Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Coimbatore and numbered as C.C. No. 271 of 2014 and it is pending. These two Crl. OP.s. have been filed by the petitioners to quash the above said proceedings in C.C. No. 271 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Coimbatore.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order of Judicial Magistrate in taking cognizance of alleged offences committed by the petitioners under Section 494 IPC read with 109 IPC is factually and also legally unsustainable since no such second marriage was solemnized as alleged by the respondent/wife. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent-wife has not produced any materials to prove the factum of the alleged second marriage held on 12.3.2008 and only on the basis of hearsay information from one Saravanan and Sasikumar, the respondent-wife filed the above said private complaint with false allegation as if the first petitioner married the second petitioner as second wife. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further pointed out that normally the Hindu marriage will not be performed at 5.45 a.m. in a temple and also pointed out that either in the complaint or in the sworn statements recorded from the witnesses, not stated any reason why the marriage ceremonies were not performed in front of the main deity called Senniyandavar and only alleged to have performed in front of Vinayakar idol in the above said Senniyandavar Temple. According to the petitioners, normally the marriage ceremoni