The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence in taking cognizance of the case and the limitations of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C.No.7661 of 2014 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai, for an offence under Section 494 r/w.107 of IPC and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to C.C.No.7661 of 2014 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai, for an offence under Section 494 r/w.107 of IPC and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.)

Common Order

1. These Criminal Original Petitions are filed to call for the records in C.C.No.7661 of 2014 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and to quash the same.

2. Complaint in C.C.No.7661 of 2014 was filed by the first respondent for the offence under Section 494 r/w. 107 IPC. The case of the first respondent, in brief, is as follows:-

First accused is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.472 of 2016 and second accused is the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.831 of 2016. First respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.7661 of 2014 and he is the father of Dr.Pinky Vedavanam. Pinky was married to Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy on 07.09.2003 at Chennai. Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy married the petitioner Sathyakala Rajangam, while his first marriage is in subsistence. He had committed the offence of bigamy. The complaint under Section 494 IPC has been filed against Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy and it is pending in Crl.M.P.No.155 of 2012 for taking cognizance. Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy's second wife Sathyakala Rajangam and the witness for the second marriage were not added as accused in the said case. Now the first respondent could obtain more information and facts and identified that the petitioners have abetted the crime of bigamy committed by Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy. Petitioner Sathyakala Rajangam is the second wife and petitioner Dr.S.Karthikeyan is the witness, who signed the Marriage Register maintained for the purpose of registration of marriage. Sathyakala Rajangam knowing fully well that Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy was already married, has married him and abetted the bigamy marriage. This complaint is filed on behalf of Dr.Pinky Vedavanam.

3. Petitioner Mrs.Sathyakala Rajangam in Crl.O.P.No.472 of 2016 and petitioner Dr.S.Karthikeyan in Crl.O.P.No.831 of 2016 are accused 1 and 2 respectively in C.C.No.7661 of 2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy and Dr.Pinky Vedavanam was solemnised on 07.09.2003 at Chennai. After the marriage, the couple started the matrimonial life at UK. A female child named Shreya was born on 11.09.2004. There was a marital discard and difference of opinion started to surface between the couple in 2007. Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy filed divorce petition in UK against Dr.Pinky Vedavanam and divorce decree was passed on 12.11.2009 and it was made absolute on 07.01.2010. This complaint was filed mainly on the allegation that Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy filed a counter in O.P.No.140 of 2011 stating that subsequent to his divorce, he married one Sathya, which is a lawful marriage. Only on the basis of this averment, criminal case was filed against Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy and his parents. This Court in Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2013 allowed the proceedings to continue only against Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy and confirmed the dismissal of the case against V.Balagurusamy and B.Ramathilagam, parents of Dr.Saravanan Balagurusamy, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. With the same set of allegations, present complaint is filed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 494 r/w.107 IPC. Dr.S.Karthikeyan preferred Crl.O.P.No.22158 of 2014 against taking cognizance of case in C.C.No.7661 of 2014. This Court only quashed the summons issued against Dr.S.Karthikeyan, but upheld the taking of cognizance giving option to the respondent to obtain sanction as per t