Madras High Court
Mahendran vs Loganayaki on 1 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No. 20718 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.20718 of 2023 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14151 and 14152 of 2023
1.Mahendran
2.Sudha
3.Natarajan
4.Selvi ... Petitioners
Vs.
Loganayaki ..Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and to
quash the impugned complaint in C.C.No.133 of 2023 pending trial on
the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot
alleged offence under Section 494 IPC.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.John Sathyan,
Senior Counsel for
M/S Adithya Varadarajan
For Respondent : Mr.D.Saikumaran
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
Crl.O.P.No. 20718 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C. No. 133 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, for the offence under
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent lodged a
complaint against the petitioners alleging that the first petitioner, who
was married to the respondent, had subsequently married another woman
in the year 2008, thereby committing the offence under Section 494 of
IPC. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the said
complaint.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the
respondent had previously lodged a complaint in C.C. No. 525 of 2007
before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Vellore, under Sections 417,
506(ii), and 498-A of IPC. After trial, the first petitioner was convicted
under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo two years of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the said
conviction, the first petitioner preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal
No. 256 of 2011 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vellore. By judgment dated 25.04.2012, the appellate court allowed the
appeal, acquitting the first petitioner from all charges. The appellate
court categorically held that the respondent failed to prove her marriage
with the first petitioner. Despite the acquittal, the respondent filed the
present complaint under Section 494 of IPC, alleging bigamy. The
learned Senior counsel contends that the respondent had knowledge of
the acquittal but suppressed this fact while filing the current complaint.
The complaint lacks specific allegations to attract the offence under
Section 494 IPC, as it fails to provide details regarding the date, time,
and nature of the alleged second marriage. Therefore, no prima facie case
is made out against the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
respondent had lived with the first petitioner as husband and wife and
was subsequently abandoned. Although the first petitioner was acquitted
in the earlier case, it does not negate the existence of a valid marriage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
between the respondent and the first petitioner. The learned counsel for
the respondent alleges that the respondent and the first petitioner were
married on 14.02.1996, though the marriage was not registered. The
learned counsel argues that the trial court’s conviction under Section
498-A of IPC was based on the existence of the marriage, which was
later overturned on appeal. The respondent claims that the acquittal does
not absolve the first petitioner of the offence of bigamy under Section
494 IPC, as the second marriage was solemnized in the year 2008 while
the first marriage was allegedly still in existence. The complaint under
Section 494 of IPC, therefore, raises a valid issue for trial.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material placed before this
Court.
6. On perusal of records, it is evident that the earlier appellate
judgment in Crl.A. No. 256 of 2011 categorically acquitted the first
petitioner, holding that the respondent failed to prove the existence of the
marriage. Subsequently, the present complaint under Section 494 of IPC
is based on allegations of bigamy, which require the existence of a valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
marriage as an essential ingredient. However, the complaint lacks
specific details regarding the alleged second marriage, such as the date,
time, and ceremonial nature, which are crucial to establish an offence
under Section 494 of IPC. That apart, the respondent, despite having
knowledge of the prior acquittal, has not disclosed this fact in the present
complaint.
7. In view of the above, the Court finds that no prima facie case is
made out as against the petitioners under Section 494 of IPC. The
continuation of proceedings in C.C. No. 133 of 2023 would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No.
133 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, is quashed as against the petitioners and this
Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.04.2025
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
shk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
shk
To
1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot
Crl.O.P.No.20718 of 2023 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14151 and 14152 of 2023
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 01:31:57 pm )
