Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13028
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
S.RAMYA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP BY – Respondent
Charges under IPC Section 494 can proceed without a personal complaint from the aggrieved spouse, as long as there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of bigamy.
Headnote:
Bigamy - Quashing of Proceedings - IPC Section List - The court analyzed the applicability of IPC Sections 494, 498A, and CrPC Section 198, explaining that charges under Section 494 could stand despite restrictions on cognizance. Evidence suggesting bigamy warranted trial while issues under Section 498A were ultimately dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed by A3 to quash proceedings for alleged bigamy and cruelty involving A1, A2, and A3, following a marriage and subsequent marital issues between A1 and the defacto complainant. A3 claimed no involvement in the marital dispute despite evidence indicating she was living with A1 and had a child with him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient evidence to sustain charges against the petitioner under IPC Section 494, indicating a prima facie case of bigamy, while dismissing charges under Section 498A as A3 did not qualify as a relative under the law.
Issues: Whether charges of bigamy could proceed against A3 and the implications of IPC Section 498A regarding mental cruelty during the subsistence of A1's first marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that despite Section 498A requiring specific relationships for prosecution, the evidence supported charges of bigamy under Section 494, justifying the continuation of proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition to quash was denied, allowing the case under Section 494 to proceed.
O R D E R
This petition has been filed by A3 seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.40 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.
2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 was married to the defacto complainant in the year 2009. There was a matrimonial dispute between A1 and the defacto complainant and it was alleged that A1 and A2 who is the father of A1 were demanding for dowry and were causing cruelty to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, A1 and defacto complainant went to Dubai and were living there for some time. However, there was again a dispute and the defacto complainant was sent back to India. At the time when she returned back to India, she was pregnant and she delivered a girl child on
11.09.2011.
3.The defacto complainant later came to know that A1 is living with the petitioner (A3) after marrying her in the year 2017 and there was also a child born to the petitioner. The defacto complainant not being able to take the cruelty any longer, gave a complaint to the first respondent which resulted in the registration of an F.I.R. in Crime No.20 of 2018. The husband, his father and the petitioner were added as accused. On completion of investigation, final report has been filed before the Court below and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.40 of 2020. In so far as the petitioner (A3) is concerned, the Court below has taken cognizance for offence under Section 494 read with 109 of I.P.C. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
4.Earlier, A1 and A2 approached this Court and filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.1340 of 2021. This Court by an order dated 19.10.2023 allowed the petition in so far as A2 is concerned and quashed the proceedings. However, the petition was dismissed in so far as A1 is concerned.
5.The petitioner who was present in person argued the case in person. She submitted that she never had any contact with A1 and that she has been unnecessarily roped in this case and that she is a single parent who is taking care of the child and she is undergoing the agony of facing the criminal prosecution before the Court below for the last four years. The petitioner further submitted that all the documents that are available with her shows that only the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as the parent of the child and the name of A1 has not been mentioned anywhere. Therefore, whatever materials are now being shown before the Court are fabricated documents. She further submitted that she did not want the child to undergo a DNA test since it will directly infringe the privacy of the child and therefore the same cannot be put against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that none of the offences are made out against her and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court which requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the final report has been filed against the petitioner only for offence under Section 494 read with 109 of I.P.C. and particularly the statements recorded from L.W.4 to L.W.8 clearly shows that the petitioner was living with A1 and the child was born to her only through A1. Therefore, it was contended that the offence under of I.P.C. is prima facie made out. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that if the offence under of I.P.C. is tried along with the other offence under Section 498 A, there is no need to resort to the private complaint procedure as contemplated under Section 198 of Cr.P.C. and both the offences can be investigated and final report can be laid before the Court below. To substantiate this submission, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relied upon the judgment in Sababathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (2) LW (Crl.) 1027.
7.Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel
