Order: 1. In this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the only question which the petitioner wanted this Court to decide is whether anybody other than the man or woman who enters into a marriage with another who is having a legally married wife or husband living with subsisting marital relationship could be prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 109 read with section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code reads: “Whether, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 3. There cannot be any dispute that whoever, whether husband or wife, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife is guilty of the offence under section 494. So also it is not disputed that a man or woman who enters into a marriage with another, who is punishable under section 494 for contracting such marriage, is guilty of an offence punishable under section 109 read with section 494 if he or she enters into such marriage with the requisite knowledge. The dispute is only whether anybody else could be prosecuted for abetting bigamy. 4. Petitioner is the 10th accused in C.C.No. 241/84 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba. That is a private complaint filed by the respondent who claims to be legally wedded wife of the first accused. During the subsistence of that marriage first accused married the 2nd accused under circumstances where the first accused is guilty of bigamy and 2nd accused guilty of having abetted the same. The remaining accused including the petitioner are relations and the accusation against them is that they committed an offence punishable under section 109 read with section 494 in relation to the said marriage. The case of the petitioner is that marriage is a solemnisation with the free wilt and consent of the spouses and there cannot be any question of abetment or instigation by any body else. The case of the petitioner is that marriage is a solemnisation with the free wilt and consent of the spouses and there cannot be any question of abetment or instigation by any body else. According to him, if it is not with the free will and consent of the parties and if it was the result of abetment or instigation it is not a marriage at all and hence section 494 or section 109 cannot be attracted. For this and this reason alone he wanted me to find that accused 3 onwards including himself cannot be prosecuted at all and this Court has to quash the complaint as against them invoking the inherent jurisdiction. 5. In the case in hand accused 3 to 12 are either relations of the first or second accused. I do not think it is possible for me to accept such a broad proposition of law or canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. The allegation against accused 3 to 12 is that with the knowledge of the subsistence of the valid marriage between the complainant and the first accused they abetted the marriage between accused 1 and 2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is true that marriage in some cases is a solemnisation and in some others it is a contract. Consent of the parties is required whether it is solemnisation or contract. Vitiating circumstances could be pleaded and proved for a marriage just like anything else. Abetment need not involve any of the vitiating circumstances on the basis of which a marriage could be avoided. Abetment is defined in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It involves instigating a person to do a thing, engaging in conspiracy or intentionally siding by any act or illegal omission the doing of a thing. Instigation may involve wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material facts which the abetor is bound to disclose. They may be vitiating circumstances. But aiding involves only doing of anything to facilitate the commission. Those who are contracting marriages coming within the mischief of section 494 themselves knowingly commit either the offence under section 494 or under section 109 read with section 494. What the abetor does is only substantially assisting the principal culprit towards commission of the offence. Abetment involves active complicity on the part of the abettor. Those who are contracting marriages coming within the mischief of section 494 themselves knowingly commit either the offence under section 494 or under section 109 read with section 494. What the abetor does is only substantially assisting the principal culprit towards commission of the offence. Abetment involves active complicity on the part of the abettor. In order to amount to abetment there must be mens rea or community of intention. Without knowledge or intention there can be no abetment and the knowledge and intention must relate to the crime and it is shared by the abettor and the principal offender. It is not a case in which the principal offender is misled to do a thing not knowing that it is an offence. Where a person who is present at the scene of occurrence either encourages the commission of the offence or where he is under a legal obligation to prevent commission of the offence and does not do so he is said to abet. Abetment could include abetment by instigation, abetment by conspiracy or abetment by aiding. 7. It may not be correct to say that abetment is out of question in an offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The parties contracting or solemnising the marriage themselves may be liable only if there is the requisite mens rea. Therefore it may not be correct to rule out abetment. It is true that there is no express provision in the Indian Penal Code for punishment of abetment of an offence punishable under section 494. But abetment of such an offence is punishable by reason of sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as was held in Srinivasa Iyer v. Saraswathi Ammal Srinivasa Iyer v. Saraswathi Ammal (1951) 2 MLJ. 649 : I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 78: A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 193 followed by Shivnarain v. The State Shivnarain v. The State (1955) 56 Crl.L.J. 1359: A.I.R. 1955 M.B. 176. As held in Hamads v. Emperor Hamads v. Emperor A.I.R, 1931 Lah. 194, there must be evidence that the person accused of abetting knew that the person married was the wife of another. Therefore it is meaningless to contend that abetment of bigamy is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. There is no point in considering that marriage performed by abetment is no marriage at all and hence section 109 is not attracted for an offence under section 494. Therefore it is meaningless to contend that abetment of bigamy is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. There is no point in considering that marriage performed by abetment is no marriage at all and hence section 109 is not attracted for an offence under section 494. Even the Indian Penal Code contemplates offences being committed by compelling a person to marry against the wishes of that person. For example there is section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. It is for the complainant to establish during the trial that the petitioner or any other accused abetted commission of the offence under section 494. At this stage we are Concerned only with the allegations in the complaint. The allegations disclose an offence under section 109. This Court will not be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint as against the petitioner. 9. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.