Vidhya v. The Stat Of Tamilnadu Repby, The Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Vidhya ... Petitioner Vs 1.

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District.

2.

State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Jeyankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.

3.

Kathiresan 4.

Sekar 5.

Senthamarai 6.

Vanitha ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents particularly second respondent to take appropriate actions against the third to sixth respondents by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2025.

For Petitioner : M/s.N.Ratchaka For R1 & R2 : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/4

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondents 3 to 6 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 04.06.2025.

2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner had earlier lodged a man-missing complaint against her husband, and the case has been registered and is being enquired into. While so, when the petitioner gave the present complaint alleging that the husband committed bigamy. During the enquiry she stated before the police that she does not know anyone named Sangeetha. Therefore, no action could be taken.

3. Be that as it may, a perusal of the representation dated 04.06.2025 shows that the petitioner is levelling an allegation of bigamy against her husband. The offence of bigamy cannot be taken cognizance of except upon a complaint by the petitioner, Vidhya, who claims to be the first wife, before the appropriate Court.

2/4

4. In that view of the matter, the prayer in the writ petition criminal cannot be countenanced and is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a private complaint before the appropriate Court. No costs. 24.06.2025 nsl To 1.

The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District.

2.

The Inspector of Police, Jeyankondam Police Station, Ariyalur District.

3.

The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Madras High Court.

3/4

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

nsl 24.06.2025 4/4