Kerala High Court
Sujatha vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2012
Author: P.S.Gopinathan
Bench: P.S.Gopinathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/26TH PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 3114 of 2011 ( )
---------------------------
CC.32/2011 of C.J.M., KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 8:
-------------------------------
1. SUJATHA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.G.VAMAN,
MATHERUVAYAL, DESHINGANADU-54, KURIPUZHA
KOLLAM.
2. SUDHARMA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.JANAKI,
CHERAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, VATTILATHAZHAM, DECENT JUNCTION
MUKHATHALA.P.O, KOLLAM.
3. USHA, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.JANAKI,
CHARUVILA VEEDU, AZHATHIL.P.O, KOLLAM.
4. AZHAKESHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN,
CHARUVILA VEEDU, AZHATHIL.P.O, KOLLAM.
5. G.VAMAN, MATHERUVAYAL, DESHINGANADU-54,
KURIPUZHA, KOLLAM.
6. ANIL KUMAR, VALIYA KEZATH THOTIYIL,
KURIPUZHA, KOLLAM.
7. MOHANAN, KOTUVILA, AZHATHIL, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.V.C.SARATH
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTEDL BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
2. RADHAMANI, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVA
PANICKER,CHARUVILA VEEDU,NARANDA NAGAR-28
VADAKEVILA VILLAGE, AZHATHIL.P.O, KOLLAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 16-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DSV/-
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO. 3114 OF 2011
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2012
O R D E R
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are the accused 2 to 8 in C.C.No32/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, a prosecution for offence under Sections 494 and 109 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code launched by the 2nd respondent, seeks an order to quash all further proceedings in Annexure A private complaint. The plea is that there is no abetment and that there is no valid 2nd marriage.
2. Having heard, I find that the resolution of the dispute can be resolved only after taking evidence. The question as to whether there is a valid second marriage, is a matter of evidence. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE DSV/-