C.C. Rangabashyam vs Ranjini Murugan and Vimala

Maheswaran, J.—The criminal miscellaneous petition is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2175 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

The facts as could be gathered from this rambling petition are as follows: Ranjini Murugan, the first Respondent, is the legally wedded wife of the second Respondent Murugan. The third Respondent, Vimala was the wife of the Petitioner C.G. Rangabashyam (The petition does not specifically say that the third Respondent, Vimala, was the wife of the Petitioner, but reference is made to the dissolution of their marriage). The first Respondent, Ranjini, preferred a complaint before the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate against Respondents 2, 3 and the Petitioner herein u/s 120B read with Section 494, Indian Panel Code and u/s 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Petitioner does not say against whom the complaint was preferred, but this fact is gathered from the copy of the complaint tiled in the case). The Petitioner is arrayed as third accused while Respondents 2 and 3 are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in the complaint. The complaint is to the effect that the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of bigamy on 13th November, 1978, at Tirumalal and therefore, are liable under Section.17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. From the complaint it is seen that in or about January, 1978 the accused, namely, the 2nd and the third Respondents and the Petitioner, entered into a criminal conspiracy to have the second accused, Vimala married to Murugan, the first accused, which is an illegal act. The first accused, Murugan, was pestering his wife, the first Respondent, Ranjini Murugan), to grant him a divorce, but she refused. On 26th March. 1978, the first accused, Murugan and Vimala the second accused, went through a form of marriage at Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Tiruneermalai. It is further seen from the complaint that Murugan procured from the first Respondent, his wife, a letter which she had to give, fearing the life of her husband. Then, after obtaining this letter, the first accused, Murugan was spending most of his time with the second accused, Vimala, and the third accused. The Petitioner, in order to facilitate Murugan and Vimala again marrying consented to the second accused filing a petition for divorce. The petition for divorce was filed by the second accused, Vimala, falsely alleging that she has been deserted by the Petitioner herein who is the third accused. This petition for divorce was not contested, and the allegation was admitted to be true. A decree for divorce was passed by the VI Assistant Civil Judge, Madras, on 19th August, 1978. The complaint further shows that after securing the dissolution of marriage between Vimala and Rangabashyam, the Petitioner herein, the first accused, Murugan and the second accused Vimala again got married at Tirumalai in Andhra Pradesh, with the consent of the Petitioner. The Petitioner now seeks to quash the proceedings which arose out of that complaint.

The grounds for quashing the proceedings have not been specifically set out in this petition. But, the Petitioner would say that the second marriage is not a valid marriage and therefore in the absence of a valid marriage, no offence of bigamy can be made out. It is further averred in the petition that there is no allegation to show that the Petitioner was a party to the conspiracy for the marriage that took place on 13th November, 1978 at Tirumalai. The Petitioner stated that the complaint does not disclose as to where the conspiracy was hatched and that this Court has quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner in relation to the said conspiracy in See Rangabashyam, C.G. v. Mrs. Ranjini Murugan. 1980 L.W. (Cri.) 174. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2233 of 1979. (The petition does not give any particulars as to when this criminal miscellaneous petition was filed). It is also stated that it is illegal to prosecute the Petitioner again, and that the complaint was given to harass the Petitioner and it amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, should be quashed.

Ranjini Murugan, the first Respondent, was married to Murugan, the second Respondent. They were married on 10th May, 1957. Through the wedlock, they have four children, three daughters and a son. The eldest daughter is married and has a child. The other two daughters are aged 18 and 10 years and the son is 17 years of age. Vimala, the third Respondent, and the Petitioner, Rangabashyam, were married to each other and used to make social visits to the house of Respondents 1 and 2. Vimala became a member of the Hypnotic Circle of Madras of which Murugan was the President. The complaint discloses that illicit intimacy developed between Murugan and Vimala and the Petitioner, husband of Vimala connived at it. Respondents 2 and 3 and the Petitioner, according to the complaint, entered into a criminal conspiracy to have Vimala married to Murugan and Murugan married Vimala at Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Tiruneermalai on 26th March 1978. A complaint in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979 before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, appears to have been filed by Ranjini Murugan. A petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979 appears to have been filed by the Petitioner herein and the contention in that petition was that the allegations do not constitute an offence punishable u/s 494, Indian Panel Code and therefore there could be no criminal conspiracy for the commission of any offence. The proceedings were quashed by Varadarajan, J. as he then was, so far as they relate to the Petitioner, holding that the complaint does not disclose that the third accused has committed any offence. 1 (The present petition for quashing does not furnish any of these particulars). A second complaint was filed in March, 1980 (the date of complaint is omitted in the copy supplied by the Petitioner). It is seen from the second complaint that after the dissolution of the marriage between Vimala and Rangabashyam, Murugan and Vimala again got married with the connivance and consent of Rangabashyam, the Petitioner herein. It is averred in this complaint that from October. 1978, the first accused, Murugan was continuously living at No. 3, Thiruveedhi Amman Koil Street, Madras-28 with Vimala, the second accused and the Petitioner, the third accused and all of them were living under the same roof till about 19th February, 1979 on which date the first Respondent filed a complaint in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979. The complaint finally states that the accused. Murugan, Vimala and Rangabashyam, entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of bigamy on 13th November, 1978 at Tirumalai and that they are liable u/s 120B read with Section 494, Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) for Respect, and u/s 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the first accused is further made liable u/s 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the second accused u/s 109 read with Section 494, Indian Panel Code and u/s 17 of Hindu Marriage Act.

It is contended for the first Respondent that the allegation in respect of performance of marriage on 13th November 1978 will be in the nature of a fresh allegation and therefore a second complaint would lie. It is also pointed out for the first Respondent that the first Respondent has made allegation that the accused, namely, the Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3, were living under the same roof from October, 1978 till about February, 1979 and that this is a strong circumstance to prove the involvement of the Petitioner in the conspiracy and that question must be decided by the trial court and therefore, there are no reasons to quash the proceedings.

The complaint, out of which the proceeding in C.C. No. 1417 of 1979 arose and which has since been quashed by this Court, is dated 19th February, 1979. The second marriage between Vimala and Murugan is said to have been performed at Tirumalai on 13th November, 1978. When the first complaint was filed the alleged second marriage had already taken place. The first Respondent. Ranjini Murugan, in her deposition in J. A. No. 7129 of 1979 in O.P. No. 350 of 1979 before the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge has stated that she has filed C.C. No. 1417 of 1979 on the file of the Fourth Metropolitan Magistrate and that even at the time of filing of that case, she knew about the marriage performed between the second and the third Respondent at Tirupati (Tirumalai). There is no reason why reference to this fact was not made in the first complaint. In dealing with the question as to whether a second complaint would lie on the same facts, the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, pointed out that an order of dismissal u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure is no bar to the entertainment of the second complaint on the same facts, but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, or where the new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed by the Petitioner, who is the third accused, for quashing the proceedings only so far as he is concerned. He is charged for entering into a criminal conspiracy for committing the offence of bigamy. The allegation that the Petitioner connived and conspired for the marriage of the first and the second (sic) accused at Tirumalai is known to the first Respondent even when she filed the first complaint. But, these facts which relate to the conspiracy to perform the marriage on 13th November, 1978 at Tirumalai ought to have been in the knowledge of the complaint, first Respondent herein, and those fasts have not been stated in the earlier complaint. The Supreme Court further observes in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, 6, as follows:

It cannot be the law that the complaint may first place before the Magistrate some of the facts and evidence in his possession and if he fails he can then adduce some more evidence and so on. That, in our opinion, is not a correct view of the law.

Further, there appears to be no factual allegation from which it could be spelt out that the Petitioner, entered into a criminal conspiracy with Respondents 2 and 3 to celebrate the marriage between Respondents 2 and 3 at Tirumalai. It is no doubt true that the first Respondent, the complainant has made reference to the divorce proceedings between the Petitioner and Vimala, his wife. According to the first Respondent, this divorce was procured in collusion with the Petitioner and that the Petitioner never cared to contest the application for divorce filed by Vimala. But, it should be noted that a decree for divorce has been passed and it may be for various reasons that the Petitioner has not contested the divorce application. It should further be noted that the Petitioner and Vimala have grown up children and it may be in their interest that that application was not contested by the Petitioner. From the fact that the application was not contested, it cannot be concluded that the decree for divorce was obtained in collusion with the Petitioner. The complaint does not clearly say as to what part the Petitioner played in effecting the marriage of Vimala with Murugan fit Tirumalai so as to draw an inference that he has really conspired with others for effecting the marriage between Vimala and Murugan. The question whether the marriage of Vimala with Murugan at Tirumalai after a marriage at Tiruneermalai is a valid marriage, need not be gone into in this application. It is sufficient to point out that so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the allegations contained in the complaint now filed by the first Respondent, do not constitute any offence against the Petitioner. In the circumstances, the proceedings in C.C. No. 2175 of 1980 on the file of the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, so far as the Petitioner is concerned, have to be quashed and are hereby quashed. This order will not, however, affect the proceedings taken against Respondents 2 and 3 by the first Respondent.