A private complaint was filed u/s.200 of Cr.P.C.

alleging that the accused no.1 is the legally wedded

wife of the complainant and during subsistence of

their marriage, accused no.1 contracted second

marriage and accused no.2 was the marriage broker

who abetted the 2^nd marriage of accused no.1 with

one Shankar.

2. The learned Magistrate after recording the

sworn statement took cognizance of the offences

punishable u/s. 417, 494, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.

Taking exception of the same, accused no.2 is before

this court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the cognizance taken by the learned

Magistrate is without jurisdiction as against accused

3

no.2 since Sec.494 of IPC specifies that a person

contracting 2^nd marriage during subsistence of 1^st

marriage shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to

seven years and shall also be liable to fine. In the

absence of any provision for constituting an offence

punishable for abetting the 2^nd marriage.

4. Respondent though served with notice has

remained absent.

5. The only allegation as against accused no.2

is that he has abetted 2^nd marriage of accused no.1

with one Shankar. Section 494 of IPC specifies that a

person contracting 2^nd marriage during subsistence of

1^st marriage is an offence punishable with an

imprisonment of seven years and shall also be liable to

pay fine. In absence of any provision constituting the

commission of offence for abetting the 2^nd marriage,

4

the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate

against accused no.2 for the offence punishable

u/s.494 r/w Sec.109 of IPC against accused no.2 is

one without jurisdiction. Accordingly I pass the

following:

ORDER

i)

Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii)

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.868/2019

pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC at

Belthangady, D.K. in so far it relates to petitioner-

accused no.2 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/