RUBINA RATNAKAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the Criminal Complaint filed under Sec. 200 of Cr. P.C. by the complainant - Sheetal Makol and for quashing the summoning order dated 15.10.2014 whereby the petitioner has been summoned and to quash the order dated 26.05.2015 whereby the directions were issued for initiating process under Sec. 82 and 83 of Cr. P.C., passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate -01, Mahila Court, South -West, Dwarka, Delhi.

(2.) In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that one Ms. Sheetal Makol - complainant had filed an application under Sec. 200 of Cr. P.C. before learned Metropolitan Magistrate intimating that she was married with Vinit Makol on 10.12.2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and she has filed a case under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. against her husband. It is also alleged that the Vinit Makol had a property at Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, in his name and during evidence of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, deposed that the ownership and transfer records of property at I -1201, 12th Floor, Riviera, Eldeco Green Medows at Pocket C, Sector Pi, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, wherein it was deposed that the said property has been transferred on meagre amount of Rs. 30 lacs to Rubina Ratnakar by Vinit Makol (husband of the complainant). It is further alleged that the property at Lajpat Nagar was more than crores and the same has been sold in a meagre amount of Rs. 25 lacs. The complainant (respondent No. 2 herein) alleged that one Rubina Ratnakar and Pranav Makol are US citizens who came to India from Madrid to Bengaluru by EMIRATES during 22nd March, to 31st March, 2014 and for travelling in India they had to take visa and fill up the OCI FORM OR PIO FORM at the time of IMIGRATION in Bengaluru. The complainant sought the details of the husband of Rubina Ratnakar and identification of Pranav Makol to establish that her husband Vinit Makol has committed bigamy and is avoiding arrest by absconding from India.

(3.) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while considering the aforesaid application under Sec. 200 of Cr. P.C., observed that the complainant has raised grave apprehension that her husband has married with Rubina Ratnakar during subsistence of his marriage with complainant but she is not in possession of all the evidence required to prove the case against accused and the requisite documentary evidence can be given only by the concerned immigration authorities therefore she prayed for investigation under Sec. 202 of Cr. P.C. through the Police/Crime Branch. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed that the accused persons in the complaint are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court and it is mandate of Sec. 202 to conduct inquiry/investigation before summoning the accused persons and while keeping in view the fact that the complainant is unable to gather the requisite documentary evidence without police assistance, directed notices to be issued to SHO, Police Station Sector 23, Dwarka to collect PIO/OCI Form from Immigration authorities or any other requisite documents concerning Rubina Ratnakar and her child Pranav Makol.