High Court quashed rubber stamp cognizance in a bigamy case. Petitioner, sister of accused, argued lack of awareness. Court remanded matter to trial court to apply mind within four weeks, allowing the petition.
Rubber stamp cognizance set aside; matter remitted to Additional Mahila Court to apply mind within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.8011 and 8012 of 2023
S.Kavitha : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.29 of 2014)
2.Radha : Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the final report in C.C.No.85 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai and quash the same as illegal so far as the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : No Appearance
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.85 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. the second respondent has been served with notice and the name of the second respondent is also printed in the cause list and there is no appearance either in person or through counsel on behalf of the second respondent.
3.The second respondent filed a complaint stating that A1 had concealed his first marriage and had married the second respondent during the subsistence of the first marriage on 23.08.2009. There are totally 8 accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A4. The petitioner is the sister of A1.
4.The main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not here at the time of the first marriage and she was in Dubai and the petitioner was not aware of the first marriage. The above ground raised by the learned counsel for the
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023
petitioner is purely factual in nature. It must be kept in mind that the petitioner is none other than the sister of A1. The petitioner is not some third party, who can claim that she was not aware of the first marriage of the first accused.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023
frowned upon by this Court. Useful reference can be made to the judgment
of this Court in Shanmugam and others v. Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur and others , reported in (2019) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 339 . The Apex Court also dealt with this issue in S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd & Ors. , reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 471 .
Court below is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the file of
the Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai and the learned Judicial Magistrate shall apply his mind on the allegations made in the complaint and the materials relied upon and pass appropriate orders which must reflect the application of mind. This process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18.12.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No ta
4/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023
To
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ta
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10047 of 2023
18.12.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a rubber stamp cognizance taken by the trial court without application of mind should be set aside.
Whether the petitioner, as a sister of the accused, is eligible to challenge the maintenance of criminal proceedings.
Whether the trial court is directed to re-examine allegations with application of mind.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shanmugam and others v. Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur and othersReferred¶28
Shanmugam and others v. Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur and others, (2019) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 339
S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd & Ors.Referred¶28
S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 471 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Kavitha
The State rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivagangai
Radha
N.ANAND VENKATESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
