CHANDRAVEER Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by Sri Chandraveer and others against the judgement and order dated 10th August, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, I, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 200 of 2004, Arvind v. Chandraveer and others, whereby the learned Magistrate summoned the revisionists as accused for the offence under Sections 120-B, 406 and 495 I.P.C

(2.) Heard Sri Akilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Anwar Husain, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and learned A.G.A on behalf of State of U.P.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of revisionists that impugned order is against the evidence available on record and is not sustainable being bad in the eyes of law because the learned Magistrate summoned the revisionists merely on the statements recorded of complainant under Sections 200 and two other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of one notarial marriage certificate of Lalita Devi with Pratap on record. The marriage of revisionist No. 4 Smt Lalita was solemnized with complainant/opposite party No. 2 Arvind son of Ram Singh on 21.2.1999 and on the basis of a notarial marriage certificate, the learned Magistrate wrongly relied that she was earlier married with Pratap. The learned Magistrate did not see the other document pertaining to Habeas Corpus Petition filed by Pratap in this Court wherein the revisionist No. 4 Lalita Devi denied of her marriage with Pratap and a detailed order in this regard was passed by Hon. S.K. Phaujdar, J. of this Court. After the marriage of revisionist No. 4 she was tortured by respondent No. 2 and she was ousted from his house. She had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance, so thereafter this criminal complaint in which the impugned order is passed, was filed against all the family members of Lalita. In fact prior to marriage of revisionist No. 4 with respondent No. 2, respondent No. 4 was never married with Pratap and merely to damage the social reputation of the family of the revisionist, Pratap had filed a Habeas Corpus Petition with fake allegations on the basis of a Notarial marriage certificate on which this Court gave finding that no marriage was solemnized of revisionist No. 4 with Pratap. The allegations that the revisionist No. 4 had taken away all the jewellery and the cash of Rs. 50,000/- with her is totally false and the learned lower Court committed manifest error of law thereby passing the impugned order for summoning the revisionist. It is also contended on behalf of revisionist that a case for maintenance as per provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C and a case for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C is pending against the respondent No. 2 filed by revisionist No. 4.