9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Complaint under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code challenged for lack of essential ingredients. Scope of inquiry at the stage of issuing process under Section 202 of the CrPC. Exercise of discretion by Magistrate in issuing process. Principles for quashing order of Magistrate issuing process. Examination of complaint allegations and evidence at the stage of issuing process. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 494 of the IPC against the petitioners, alleging bigamy. The complaint detailed instances where the petitioner was accused of developing illicit relationships and having children with another woman. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued process based on the complaint, which was challenged by the petitioners, arguing that the complaint lacked essential ingredients of the offense under Section 494 and was filed with the intention of harassment due to previous litigation. 2. The petitioners contended that for proving an offense under Section 494, the complainant must specify when the marriage between the accused persons took place. They relied on Supreme Court decisions to support their argument that the complaint did not disclose any offense under Section 494 of the IPC. 3. The judgment highlighted that at the stage of issuing process, the court's duty is not to determine guilt but to ascertain if there are sufficient grounds to proceed further. The court emphasized that the Magistrate's role is to determine the existence of a prima facie case based on the complaint and evidence presented, without delving into detailed merits of the case. 4. The judgment reiterated that the Magistrate's inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC is limited to ascertaining the truth of the allegations for the purpose of deciding if a prima facie case exists. The accused has no standing at this stage, and the Magistrate's discretion in issuing process should be judicially exercised. The judgment outlined scenarios where the order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed, including when the complaint lacks legal defects or when the allegations are inherently improbable. 5. The complaint alleged second marriages by the accused persons, supported by certificates and hospital records. The court noted that the complainant intended to examine witnesses to prove the offense of bigamy under Section 494. The judgment emphasized that it was premature to judge the case's merits at this stage, and the complainant should be given the opportunity to prove her case. 6. The court declined to delve into contradictions raised by the petitioner in an affidavit, stating that such matters could be addressed during the trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The judgment emphasized that the petitioners would have the opportunity to present their defense during the proceedings. 7. The court held that the case did not warrant the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, as these powers should be sparingly used to correct patent illegalities. The judgment concluded that no grounds existed for interference under inherent powers in this case. 8. Consequently, the criminal application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The judgment clarified that its findings were not binding on the Metropolitan Magistrate, who was free to decide the case on its merits in accordance with the law. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing the issues raised and the legal principles applied throughout the decision.
|
