Judgment The petitioners, who are respectively accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 182 of 1987 pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, for offences under Ss.494 and 493 read with 109, I.P.C, on a private Complaint instituted by the respondent herein, invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Ss.482 and 493, Crl.P.C. to quash the above proceedings. 2. Facts briefly are: The respondent preferred a private Complaint before the above Court against the petitioners herein (the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.12017 of 1987 will hereinafter be referred to as the first petitioner and the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.12020 of 1980 will hereinafter be referred to as the second petitioner) for the offences shown above, on the allegation that the first petitioner married the respondent on 19.8.1974 as per Hindu custom and convention and the marriage was duly registered at Pondicherry at Etat Civil on 25.12.1975, that thereafter they lived together as husband and wife and four children were born to them, that the above marriage is subsisting, that the first petitioner persuaded the respondent to execute a power of attorney in favour of one Illengo to sell the house belonging to the respondent in Cuddalore representing that with the money they could purchase a new house in Cuddalore itself and that the power was executed in 14.8.1987. The further allegation in the Complaint is that after the execution of the power, the first petitioner started ill-treating her and forcibly made her sign on several blank papers. Finally on 10.9.1987, the first petitioner took away all the jewels of the respondent and also the jewels which she was wearing and drove her out of the material home. The respondent was residing with her mother. She was looking forward to a reconciliation. However she heard that the first petitioner, during the subsistence of her marriage with him, had married the second petitioner on 1.10.1987 as per Hindu custom and convention at Thiruventhipuram Devanathaswamy Temple. The second petitioner also was aware of the fact that the first petitioner was already married and the marriage was subsisting. The petitioners, therefore, had committed offences under Ss.494 and 493 read with 109 I.P.C. In the Complaint, the Executive Officer of the above Devanathaswamy Temple and others have been cited as witnesses. 3. Learned Magistrate examined the Complainant on oath under S.202, Crl. The petitioners, therefore, had committed offences under Ss.494 and 493 read with 109 I.P.C. In the Complaint, the Executive Officer of the above Devanathaswamy Temple and others have been cited as witnesses. 3. Learned Magistrate examined the Complainant on oath under S.202, Crl. P.C. The Complainant/respondent, while examined on oath, has stated that she married the first petitioner on 19.9.1974 and the marriage was registered, that they lived together for 13 years and four sons were born to them, that later the 1st petitioner started ill-treating her demanding money from her, that, therefore, she came to her mother’s house and on 1.10.1987, the first petition had married the second petitioner at Thiruventhipuram Devanathaswamy Temple, that she had produced the certificate for the above marriage in Court and the above marriage was unlawful and that, therefore, action may be taken. 4. Learned Magistrate, on the allegations made in the Complaint as well as the sworn statement and the documents produced along with the Complaint, found that there was sufficient ground for proceeding further and acting under S.204.Crl. P.C, and issued process to the petitioners. Issue of the above process is now challenged and is sought to be quashed under S.482, Crl. P.C. 5. Thiru T.S. Arunachalam, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the act of issuing a process under S.204, Crl. P.C, is a judicial act and is neither an act of formality nor a routine act since the same jeopardises the liberty of a citizen. S.202, Crl. P.C, has been specifically enacted in order to make the Court pause, to find out whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, when a private Complaint is presented under S.200, Crl. P.C. In such a situation, the Court is bound to examine that Complaint on oath and if need be any other witness. Thereafter, if the Court is satisfied that there are grounds for proceeding further in the matter the court could issue process under S.204, Crl. P.C. In the instant case, learned counsel contended that there was no legal evidence for the second marriage and that, therefore, the trial court was in error in holding that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding and issuing process to the petitioners. P.C. In the instant case, learned counsel contended that there was no legal evidence for the second marriage and that, therefore, the trial court was in error in holding that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding and issuing process to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the respondent was not an eye witness to the second marriage and the Executive Officer of the Temple had not been examined and the Court was wrong in acting upon the certificate issued by the Executive Officer since the same had not been proved and was, therefore, not legal evidence. Issuance of process under S.204, Crl. P.C. therefore, had to be quashed. Learned counsel placed reliance upon certain decisions, which I shall refer to presently. 6. The first decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that of the Calcutta High Court in Mac Culloch v. The State 1974 Crl. L.J. 182 where in Paragraph 7 of the judgment, the learned single Judge has held that the provisions of S.200, Crl. P.C. are not a mere formality and have been enacted for the purposes of protecting persons against unwarranted Complaints. There cannot be any different view from the proposition of law laid down above. The question would still be what would be the powers of this Court under S.492, Crl.P.C to quash a private Complain in which the Magistrate acting under S.204, Crl. P.C. has issued process to the accused. 7. A decision strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is Nageswara v. Veeranna, 1916 S.C.67 (S.N.): 1976 Crl. L.J. 1513., Wherein the Supreme Court has laid down certain illustrative cases warranting interference by this Court The Supreme Court observed: "Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside. (1) Where the allegations made in the Complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the Complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (1) Where the allegations made in the Complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the Complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (2) Where the allegations made in the Complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can never reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or in materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible and (4) Where the Complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, of absence of a Complaint by legally Competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedines.” 8. Again in Prathiba Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985 Crl. L.J. 917: A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 628: (1985) M.L.J. (Crl.) 267: (1985) S.C.C. (Crl.) 180: (1985) 2 S.C.C. 320, the Supreme has observed: “A perusal of the allegations made in the Complaint undoubtedly makes out a positive case of the accused having dishonestly misappropriated the articles handed over to them in a fiduciary capacity.. All the ingredients of an offence under S.405, I.P.C. were pleaded and prima facie case for summoning the accused was made out In such circumstances, the Complainant should have been given an opportunity by the High Court to prove her case rather than quashing the Complaint Such an exercise of jurisdiction under S.482, Crl. P.C. is totally unwarranted by law.” The Supreme Court has also relied upon the list of valuable articles that had been appended to the Complain and has concluded: “Thus, the facts mentioned in the Complaint taken at their face value reveal a clear allegation that the sridhar property of the appellant was entrusted to the husband who refused to return the same to her. “The Complaint prima facie disclosed the offence of criminal breach of trust and the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court quashing the above Complaint. 9. Later, in J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain 1986 Crl. L.J. 917: A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 833: (1986) S.C.C. (Crl) 216: (1986) 2 Comp. “The Complaint prima facie disclosed the offence of criminal breach of trust and the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court quashing the above Complaint. 9. Later, in J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain 1986 Crl. L.J. 917: A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 833: (1986) S.C.C. (Crl) 216: (1986) 2 Comp. L.J. 1: (1986) 3 S.C.C. 67 : (1986) 2 S.C.J. 281. where the High Court had quashed the issue of process to the accused on the basis of a subsequent report by the C.B.I., and also on the ground that some of the parties alleged to be in the conspiracy were not made parties, the Supreme Court observed: “These in our opinion, are no grounds four quashing the criminal proceedings where on prima facie being satisfied the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance. Taking all the allegations in the Complaint to be true, without adding or subtracting anything, at this stage it cannot be said that no prima facie case for trial had been made out That is the limit of the power to be exercised by the High Court under S.482 of the Crl. P.C. The High Court in the instant case has exceeded that jurisdiction. 10. From the above decisions it follows, therefore, that at that stage what the Court has to find out is as to whether on the allegations made in the Complaint and in the documents enclosed thereto and on the statement of the Complainant and other witnesses, if any, recorded on oath under S.200, Crl. P.C., there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further and issuing process to the accused. If the above materials do not contain ingredients of an offence, then the proceedings have to be quashed. 11. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Atullah v. Ram Saran Mahto, 1981 Crl.L J 616: A.I.R. 1981.S.C.1155: (1981) 2 S.C. C.266: (1986) S.C. (Crl) 419, wherein the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arrah, considered it necessary to order an investigation under S.202, Crl. P.C., and a cryptic report was received from the person, who was directed to hold an enquiry and no reasons were given in the report and the learned Magistrate took the case on file and issued process without any further material having been put forth in the enquiry under S.202, Crl. P.C. The Supreme Court quashed the process issued to the accused. P.C. The Supreme Court quashed the process issued to the accused. The facts of the above case. 12. Similarly, in the decision in Gopi Nath & Sons v. State of H.P. 1981 Crl. L.J. 175 wherein the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, merely endorsed on a Complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, that the Complaint be checked and be registered and summons be issued to the accused, the High Court of Himachala Pradesh quashed the proceedings since it was patent that the magistrate had only caused the Complaint to be checked and registered without himself applying his judicial mind to the averments as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Nath v. Dy. Supat. of Police, Purulia 1972 Crl. L.J. 268: 1973 L.W. (Crl.) 261, wherein the order of the High Court, quashing a process issued against the accused by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Purulia Shri Sarkar on the basis of an enquiry by another Magistrate, Shri S.K. Ganguly, who had taken cognizance of the same and held judicial enquiry and found that a prima facie case under S.305, I.P.C. had been made out, was upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that issue of process is a matter for judicial determination and since it was Sri Sarkar who had taken cognizance of the case and held an enquiry under S.202, Crl. P.C. Shri Ganguly to whom the Report was sent could not issue process to the accused on an enquiry conducted by the former under S.202, Crl. P.C. Incidentally, a contention had also been raised that the High Court was in error in going into the question as to whether a prima facie case was established or not. Answering the above contention, the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court under S.561 A (Present S.482, Crl. P.C.) can go into the question as to whether there is any legal evidence and that when the High Court said that the evidence in the present case came from tainted sources and was not reliable the High Court meant what can be described as “no case to go to the jury”. 14. P.C.) can go into the question as to whether there is any legal evidence and that when the High Court said that the evidence in the present case came from tainted sources and was not reliable the High Court meant what can be described as “no case to go to the jury”. 14. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Vardachari C.S. v. C.S. Shanti, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 84, wherein application under S.482, Crl.P.C, was allowed by this Court and issue of process to accused 3 to 6 in a private Complaint instituted for offences under Ss.494 and 492 read with 109 I.P.C, was quashed. Accused 3 to 6 were the parents and relatives of the husband who had contracted the bigamous marriage. The only allegation that was made against them both in the private Complaint, as well as in the sworn statement was that they were present at the time of the bigamous marriage and after the tying of the thali they threw sacred rice over the couple and blessed them. On these allegations after discussing several decisions on abetment, this Court held that something more is necessary to attract the provisions of S.109, I.P.C., and unless there was something to show that accused 3 to 6 had intentionally abetted the commission of the offence of bigamy they could not be held liable under S.109, I.P.C. The proceeding, therefore, were quashed on that ground Incidentally, the Court observed that there was no legal evidence to connect accused 3 to 6 with the crime since the Complaint in that case was not an eye witness to the second marriage and the evidence was hearsay evidence. 15. The facts of the instant case are entirely different. The certificate issued by the Executive Officer attached to the Devanathaswamy Temple at Thiruventhipuram is legal evidence. The Executive Officer is a Public Servant. He has issued a certificate, which is put forward as evidence of the second marriage. The contents of a document are proved, by the production of the original. P.W.I has stated that the petitioners contracted the second marriage on 1.10.1987 and she had produced in court the certificate relating to that marriage. For the stage under S.204, Crl. P.C, these are relevant and sufficient. The contents of a document are proved, by the production of the original. P.W.I has stated that the petitioners contracted the second marriage on 1.10.1987 and she had produced in court the certificate relating to that marriage. For the stage under S.204, Crl. P.C, these are relevant and sufficient. The two ingredients necessary for an offence under S.494, I.P.C, are that (i) there should be a prior marriage subsisting and (ii) during the subsistence of the prior marriage the second marriage should have been contracted, which but for the existence of the prior marriage, would be a legal marriage. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, both these ingredients have been mentioned both in the Complaint as well as in the sworn statement Regarding the offence under S.494 read with 109 I.P.C, against the second petitioner the further ingredient that is necessary is that the second petitioner contracted the marriage with the knowledge of the subsistence of the first marriage. It is mentioned so in the Complaint. It is spoken to by the respondent that the second marriage is illegal. The Complaint, the documents enclosed with the Complaint and the sworn statement of the respondent make out the ingredients of the offence. While under S.203, Crl. P.C., the Court is required to consider as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further, under S.245, Crl. P.C., the Court has to consider whether on the “evidence”, that has been let in under S.244, Crl. P.C, there could be a conviction of the accused, if the evidence remains unrebutted. The difference in the language between S.203, Crl. P.C., and S.245, Crl. P.C., is significant This is not a case where there is no material to warrant issue of process, this court will be justified in interfering only if the allegations made in the Complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same, taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or when the Complaint does not disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused. This is no such case. Hence these petitions are dismissed.