ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 196 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiri District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and they got married on 26.08.2011. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded dowry and committed mental cruelty upon her. The physical cruelty that was committed by the petitioner upon the second respondent has also been stated in the final report.

3. The FIR was initially registered for an offence under Sections 417, 420 and 498A of IPC. On the completion of the investigation, the final report was filed only for an offence under Section 498A of IPC and other two offences were given up. The Court below also took cognizance of the final report only for an offence under Section 498A of IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very prosecution against the petitioner is not maintainable due to the fact that there was no husband and wife relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was working as a Sub Inspector of Police and the second respondent had developed some relationship with the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the second respondent was already married to one Satheesan and the said marriage - is still in subsistence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after the criminal proceedings were commenced and in the departmental proceedings, the second respondent had also deposed as a witness. While, deposing as a witness, the second respondent has categorically stated that the first marriage is still in subsistence and this was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and inspite of the same, the petitioner had agreed to marry the second respondent.

6. The learned counsel submitted that the fact regarding the first marriage of the 2nd respondent and its subsistence is supported by the marriage certificate and also the admission of the 2nd respondent about the said fact, during the departmental enquiry. Therefore, under such circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution under Section 498A of IPC, is not sustainable against the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that the respondent police, in the course of investigation, have collected sufficient materials in order to prove the physical and mental cruelty that was undergone by the 2nd respondent in the hands of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue as to whether the 2nd respondent has already married and whether there was a valid marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, are all matters of evidence and the same can be found out only in the course of the trial. The learned counsel submitted that the said exercise cannot be done by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, must be made to undergo the trial before the Court below.

8. The 2nd respondent has been served the notice and her name has also been printed in the cause list. However, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this Court proceeds to dispose of this case on merits.

9. It is true that this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry and assess the evidence at the stage of considering a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the only exception that has been provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are in cases, where there are materials of sterling quality available before the Court. In such cases, this Court can always rely upon those documents, over which there is no dispute and they are of sterling and unimpeachable quality.

10. In the instant case, there are two materials that are available under this category. T