Prima facie bigamy complaint and abetment allegations justified process; jurisdiction, delay, and marriage-formality objections failed.

A private complaint alleging bigamy and abetment disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed because the Magistrate at the Section 203 CrPC stage had only to see whether a prima facie case existed, not to test the truth of the allegations. The complaint alleged a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage and participation by the other accused with knowledge of that fact, so issuance of process was upheld. Objections based on territorial jurisdiction, delay, and the absence of detailed pleadings on customary ceremonies were rejected. The pleadings and sworn statements were held sufficient at the threshold to invoke the Hindu Marriage Act provisions, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the private complaint alleging bigamy and abetment disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed and justified refusal to quash the criminal case; (ii) Whether the grounds relating to jurisdiction, delay, and absence of pleaded customary ceremonies or essential marriage formalities warranted interference under inherent powers.

Issue (i): Whether the private complaint alleging bigamy and abetment disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed and justified refusal to quash the criminal case.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the first accused entered into a second marriage while the first marriage with the complainant was subsisting, and that the remaining accused participated in the ceremony with knowledge of the subsisting marriage. At the stage of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required only to see whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not to evaluate evidence or decide truthfulness. The materials disclosed a prima facie case, including the participation of the other accused, and therefore the issuance of process could not be faulted.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding, and quashing was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds relating to jurisdiction, delay, and absence of pleaded customary ceremonies or essential marriage formalities warranted interference under inherent powers.

Analysis: The choice of jurisdiction was held to be permissible because the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code could be inquired into or tried at a court having jurisdiction over the place where the offence was committed. The delay in filing the complaint did not by itself defeat the prosecution. As to the validity of the alleged second marriage, the Tamil Nadu special provision regarding self-respect and secular marriages under Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act was relied upon, and the pleadings and sworn statements were found sufficient at the threshold stage to attract the provision.

Conclusion: The objections based on jurisdiction, delay, and marriage formalities were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was not attracted for quashing, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue against all the accused.

---