MANTI SAHU Vs. MAHESH GANJIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the order dated 10.8.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No.15 of 2015, whereby the Learned Sessions Judge/Revisional Court has allowed the revision preferred by Respondent No.1/accused Mahesh Ganjir and set aside the order of the Trial Court framing charges under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code against Respondent No.1/accused.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Applicant Smt. Manti Sahu filed a private complaint against Respondent No.1 Mahesh Ganjir stating that both of them belong to same community. Respondent No.1/accused expressed his love to her and thereafter on 8.5.2008 he performed marriage with her in Sankardahra Temple at Dongargaon. After the marriage, both of them lived together in a rented house at Dongargaon. Thereafter, he took her to different places on excursion and during that period he regularly made physical relationship with her. During the period of excursion, he spent her money. After return to Dongargaon, he again made demand for money from her and when she refused to give, he refused her to keep with him. As a result of which, she went to her paternal house and issued him a legal notice. Thereafter, he came back to her and assured that he will provide her all rights of a wife and he also executed an agreement. After sometime, he disclosed that he was already married and was also having a child from that wife. When she was going to lodge a report against him, his first wife and his other family members made her a request and assured that they will give her all rights of a wife. Thereafter, she was taken to Bhoramdeo Temple at Kawardha, where again marriage between her and Respondent No.1/accused was performed and she was allowed to live with Respondent No.1. After sometime, Respondent No.1 again started subjecting her to harassment. She made an attempt to lodge a report, but the same was not registered. Therefore, she filed the private complaint against Respondent No.1 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 493, 494, 495, 496 and 506B of the Indian Penal Code. After taking evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon took cognizance of the offence and directed the Applicant/Complainant to adduce her evidence before framing of charge against Respondent No.1/accused. The Applicant examined herself and her other witnesses. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, after perusal of the material available on record, framed charges under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code against Respondent No.1/accused vide order dated 7.1.2015 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.43 of 2011. Challenging the order dated 7.1.2015, Respondent No.1/accused preferred a revision, being Criminal Revision No.15 of 2015 before the Court of Session at Rajnandgaon. The Sessions Judge/Revisional Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision vide the impugned order dated 10.8.2015 and set aside the order dated 7.1.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.8.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Applicant Smt. Manti Sahu has moved the present revision.

(3.) It was submitted by Applicant Smt. Manti Sahu herself that the Sessions Judge has held that according to the evidence led by her, it is clear that her marriage was performed with Respondent No.1 at Bhoramdeo Temple, Kawardha after her meeting with the first wife of Respondent No.1 and after knowing the fact that Respondent No.1 was already married. Thus, Respondent No.1 has not committed any fraud with her and, therefore, no charge under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed against Respondent No.1. While holding so, the Sessions Judge has failed to consider the entire evidence available on record that before performing of marriage between the parties at Bhoramdeo Temple, Kawardha, both had already performed marriage at Sankardahra Temple, Dongargaon and at that time this fact was not disclosed by Respondent No.1 that he is already married with another woman nor was this fact was within the knowledge of the Applicant. The Sessions Judge has further erred in not considering the evidence adduced by the Applicant/Complainant that after the marriage at Sankardahra Temple, Dongargaon, they lived together at Dongargaon and also visited various other places as husband and wife. The Sessions Judge also failed to consider that on 21.1.2009, Respondent No.1/accused executed an agreement in which also he did not disclose about his first marriage and assured the Applicant/Complainant for keeping her with all grace giving her all rights of a wife. The Sessions Judge has also failed to consider that it is only after few days of execution of the agreement, Respondent No.1 disclosed her about his first marriage and when she was going to lodge a report, his first wife and his other family members asked her not to make a report. Thereafter, again her marriage was performed with Respondent No.1/accused in Bhoramdeo Temple. The Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that prior to her marriage with Respondent No.1/accused, she was having knowledge of his first marriage and, therefore, the offence under Sections 493 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against Respondent No.1.