NIVEDITA DINA NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14-5-1985, one Neeta Kamra claiming herself to be the wife of Shri Suhird Kamra filed the complaint under Sections 494/495 read with Section 109 IPC in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Dist. Delhi. In the complaint, she alleged that her marriage with respondent No. 1 was performed at Arya Samaj Mandir, Pankha Road, 'C' Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in the presence of her family members. After the marriage, both of them have been living as husband and wife at various places including at the house of her parents at Janakpuri, New Delhi. Out of the said wedlock, a, girl was born to the petitioner on 21-1-85 at Janakpuri. However, on 4-1-1985, her husband left the house with his bag and baggage for good and thereafter never returned. The petitioner has now come to know that respondent No. 1 Suhird Kamra has contracted a second marriage with one Neena Kamra at Putta Parthy, Hyderabad which was attended by his father, mother, sister Miss Monika Kamra and his aunt Mrs. Nivedita Chauhan, the respondents in that case. All the respondents were fully aware of the earlier marriage of respondent No. 1 with the applicant and they were thus guilty of abetting him to enter into a second illegal marriage.

(2.) IN support of her complaint, the petitioner examined herself and produced three other witnesses, including her father and Shri Goverdhan Lal the father of Smt. Neeta Kamra. After going through the complaint and the evidence recorded in support of the averments made therein, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 1-10-1985 found that a prima facie case under Section 494 IPC against Suhird Kamra, and under Section 494/109 IPC against the remaining respondents has been made out and accordingly summoned them. It is against this order Mrs. Nivedita Dina Nath has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order of the learned Magistrate issuing process and calling upon the petitioner to face charge under Section 494/109 IPCI.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for Neeta Kamra is that the provisions of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code will be fully attracted if the complainant is able to prove the active participation of the present petitioner at the time of the second marriage. According to the learned counsel, an act or the offence must be held to have been committed in con, sequence of the abetment when it is so done at the instigation or in pursuance of the conspiracy which act is duly proved from the preliminary evidence recorded in support of the complaint of Neeta Kamra.