2012 (2) TMI 657 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the complaint u/s 494 IPC and 494 r/w 109 IPC.
2. Jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani.
3. Compliance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. Allegations of abuse of process of court.
5. Delay in filing the complaint.
6. Role of petitioners 3 to 11 in Crl.O.P.No.777 of 2008 and petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.36039 of 2007.

Summary:

1. Validity of the complaint u/s 494 IPC and 494 r/w 109 IPC:
The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging that the first accused committed an offense punishable u/s 494 IPC and the other accused u/s 494 r/w 109 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance, examined the complainant and witnesses, and issued process u/s 203 r/w 204 Cr.P.C. The petitioners sought to quash the complaint on various grounds, including the lack of necessary averments to attract the penal provisions.

2. Jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani:
The petitioners contended that the choice of Bhavani as the place for filing the complaint indicated an abuse of process. However, the court held that the complainant had the option to choose the jurisdiction as per Section 182(2) Cr.P.C., and the choice of Bhavani could not be faulted.

3. Compliance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act:
The petitioners argued that the complaint did not disclose the completion of marriage formalities as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court noted that Section 7-A, introduced by the Tamil Nadu Amendment, provides for the validity of marriages performed with simple ceremonies like garlanding or tying a thali, which was sufficient to proceed with the case.

4. Allegations of abuse of process of court:
The petitioners claimed that the complaint was filed to coerce the first accused to withdraw the divorce petition. The court rejected this contention, stating that the mere fact that a divorce petition preceded the complaint did not prove the complaint was false or an abuse of process.

5. Delay in filing the complaint:
The petitioners argued that the complaint should be dismissed due to a delay of nearly one month after the alleged occurrence. The court held that the delay did not bar the complaint unless it was barred by limitation, and the delicate nature of the relationships involved justified the delay.

6. Role of petitioners 3 to 11 in Crl.O.P.No.777 of 2008 and petitioners 1 and 2 in Crl.O.P.No.36039 of 2007:
The petitioners contended that they were merely attendees of the second marriage and did not attract the penal provisions. The court found that the complaint and statements indicated their active participation and knowledge of the subsisting marriage, warranting the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both petitions, finding sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case and rejecting the contentions of the petitioners regarding jurisdiction, compliance with marriage formalities, abuse of process, delay, and the role of the accused.