Citations: Muthammal and Ors. Vs Maruthathal, 1981 CriLJ 833

Date of Judgement: 13/03/1981

Equivalent citations: 1981 CriLJ 833

Case Type: Writ Petition

Petitioner: Muthammal and Ors.

Respondent: Maruthathal

Bench: Hon’ble Justice M S Sayeed

Court: High Court of Madras

Statues Refereed:

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections – 107, 109, 111, 494

Cases Referred:

  • State Vs Malan Rama ILR (1958)


  • The Petition was filed by the Petitioners/Accused 3 to 8 to quash the second charge framed against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 11 of 1980.
  • The first Accused was married the second Accused and, therefore, the first Accused is liable to be punished under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.
  • The third Accused who is the mother of the first Accused, the fourth Accused who is the elder brother of the Accused 1, 5 and 6 are either sister-in-law sisters of the first Accused and Accused 7 and 8 who are the sisters and who are all the Petitioners herein, have abetted in the offence committed by the first Accused and hence they are also liable to be punished under Section 109 and Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.
  • Charges were framed by the Magistrate not only against the first and the second Accused but also against the Petitioners/Accused 3 to 8 herein.
  • This petition was filed to quash the charge of Petitioners/Accused 3 to 8.

Issues Involved:

  • Whether the act amounts to an abetment or not depend upon a consideration of Explanation to Section 107 of Indian Penal Code?

Contentions of Petitioner:

The counsel for Petitioner contended that:

  • The learned counsel for the Applicants perusing before Court, the proof of P.W. 2 and 3 illustrated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, battles, that there is no body of evidence for abetment against the solicitors thus and they are not at risk for the said offense, nor a charge outlined against them is justified.
  • From the proof of P.W. 2, who is supposed to be an observer to the subsequent marriage and from the proof of P.W. 3, obviously, it is just the 6th denounced (fourth candidate in this) and there isn’t anything to show that the applicants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have deliberately supported or actuated the primary blamed in submitting the offense for Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.
  • It was likewise contended that there is no proof both of P.W. 2 or of P.W. 3 to show, concerning which part the applicants have played by which, they can be said that they have abetted in the offense submitted by the first and the subsequent blamed.
  • So, the learned insight for the candidates fights that from the oral proof of P.W. 2 and 3 cited for his situation.
  • A body of evidence as against the candidates regarding abetment can’t be said to have been made out to the extent that the Applicants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are concerned and the preliminary Judge has blundered in law in control sheeting the solicitors for the offense of abetment.
  • It was seen subsequent to going through the proof of P.W. 2 and 3. There isn’t anything to show in their proof that different applicants have taken any part in the exhibition of the second marriage of the main charged or would it be able to be said, from the proof illustrated by P.W. 2 and 3, that the candidates 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have abetted in the commission of the offense by the principal blamed.

Contention of Respondent:

The counsel for Respondent countered the Petitioner’s arguments as:

  • The learned Counsel Mr. Calvin Jacob showing up for the Respondent urges that the mother of first blamed, who is the primary solicitor thus, has participated in the second marriage of the main charged and it can’t be said that the mother isn’t obligated for the offense evened out against her.
  • He additionally battles that denounced 4 and 5 were likewise present at the hour of the marriage, and, subsequently, they are additionally responsible in abetting the offense submitted by the principal blamed, as in any case their quality is superfluous at the hour of the marriage.


The Petition was Allowed in part.

The charge of  Section 109 and 494 of Indian Penal Code is not maintainable against Petitioner 1,2,3,5 as against them on the evidence adduced in this case and the charge has been quashed accordingly. The Petition was allowed. The Petition against the 4th Petitioner was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The evidence present in the instant case does not throw any light on the fact that the Petitioner presence at the time of the marriage amounted to the commissioning of the offence and had these persons had not remained present at the time of the marriage, the offence under Section 494 Indian Penal Code would not have taken place.


Thus, we can conclude by saying that the word abetment implies that whoever, either before or at the hour of the commission of a demonstration, does anything request to work with the commission that demonstration, and, along these lines, works with the commission thereof, is said to help doing of that demonstration.

The aforementioned act in itself doesn’t prompt the vital end that the demonstration was done to work with the exhibition of the marriage.

Drafted by: Bharti Verma, Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of Law

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Published On: October 18, 2021 at 18:01 IST

Related Post