KANWAR SINGH Vs. GOVT NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The abovementioned petitions are disposed off by a common order. The Petitioners in these petitions seek quashing of order dated 27th November, 2009 passed by the learned ACMM summoning the Petitioners for offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. The Petitioners are the brothers of accused No. 2 Seema Devi.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Savita, Respondent No. 2 got married to Satpal on 26th April, 1996 according to Hindu Rites at Faridabad and out of the wedlock, a male male child was born on 1st July, 1999. Till 20th June, 2001 Savita and Satpal resided together at House No. 1020, Ward No. 7, Mehrauli, New Delhi. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the Petitioners started harassing Savita and finally in the year 2001, she filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act against Satpal which was later on converted into a divorce petition by mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The order on first motion petition was passed on 6th March, 2003 by the Additional District Judge. It is alleged that Satpal did not come forward for the second motion and hence the marriage between Savita and Satpal could not be dissolved. Further, it is alleged that during the subsistence of marriage between Satpal and Savita, Satpal married Seema according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies in Dehradun on 23rd January, 2005. Thereafter, Satpal and Seema resided together as husband and wife. On 11th January, 2009 both Satpal and Seema forcibly entered in the house of Savita at House No. 1043, Ward No. 8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Hence, Savita filed Complaint Case No. 18/2009. Taking cognizance in the said case, the learned ACMM passed the order dated 27th November, 2009 summoning the Petitioners herein along with other accused persons, which order is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that they have been falsely implicated by the Respondent No. 2 Savita in the present case. The only allegation against the Petitioners is that they hatched a conspiracy against the complainant and were the witnesses to the marriage between accused No. 1 Satpal and accused No. 2 Seema. It is contended that the complaint of the Savita is highly motivated and mala fide as is apparent on its face, as all the near relatives have been implicated to face the rigors of criminal trial merely because they attended the wedding of Satpal and Seema. The marriage between them took place in the year 2005 and complainant Savita filed a complaint only in the year 2009 after a lapse of four years which is highly belated. The complainant Savita is using the complaint case as a tool to harass Satpal and Seema. An offence under Section 494 IPC is committed by either spouse who remarry during subsistence of a legal and valid marriage and hence the Petitioners only being relatives of Satpal and Seema ought not to have been summoned under Section 494 IPC as they are not covered under its ambit by any stretch. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and hence liable to be set aside.