on the application of the first respondent the high companyrt by the impugned order quashed the proceedings before the metropolitan magistrate.
hence the appeal.
the companyplaint was taken companynizance of for offences under sections 494 496 498 a 112 114 120 120 b and 34 ipc against the respondents.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fathima beevi j. special leave granted.
they lived together until 1982 and have two children.
from the judgment and order dated 16.2.1988 of the madras high companyrt in crl.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 672 of 1989.
3 to 6.
petition number 12389 of 1987.
the appellant instituted criminal companyplaint in the companyrt of the metropolitan magistrate.
it was al leged that the first respondent married the second respond ent while the proceedings for decree of divorce were still pending the marriage was performed secretly in the presence of respondent number.
aruna mathur and a. mariarputham for the respondents.
mohan and r.a.
the first respondent moved the city civil companyrt for divorce.
perumal for the appellant.
k. jain mrs.
they separated and the legal battle companymenced in 1983.
the appellant married the first respondent on 29.4.
