NAWAL KISHORE SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying that the orders dated 29-6-1985 and 19-9-1985 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rampurwa district Kanpur Nagar, in case No. 695 of 1984 Smt. Madhuri Devi Shukla v. Nawal Kishore Shukla and others, which is the complaint in that case be quashed.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the present opposite party No. 2, Smt. Madhuri Devi Shukla filed a complaint against nine accused persons alleging that they have committed offence punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. It was contended that the applicant was the wife of opposite party No. 2. Nawal Kishore Shukla but during the lifetime of the applicant he remarried opposite party No. 6. Smt. Rajendri Devi. It is asserted that the marriage took place with the connivance of the other co-accused persons. After the enquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. the learned Magistrate summoned the accused persons. The hearing of this case started before the Magistrate. The complainant moved an application before the learned Magistrate asserting that though the accused persons had denied the marriage between Nawal Kishore Shukla and Smt. Rajendri Devi; the latter was living with Nawal Kishore Shukla and has also become pregnant. She prayed that for asserting this fact, Smt. Rajendri Devi be medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Rai Bareli. Later on she filed an affidavit asserting that Smt. Rajendri Devi has actually given birth to a child at Rai Bareli where she was taken by Nawal Kishore Shukla. The learned Magistrate allowed the application for medical examination and directed Smt. Rajendri Devi to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Rai Bareli for that purpose. As Smt. Rajendri Devi did not appear for medical examination, another application was moved on behalf of the complainant. On that application the learned Magistrate again directed Smt. Rajendri Devi to appear before the Chief Medical Officer on 14-10-1985. He also mentioned that in case she does not do so, the exemption from personal presence granted to her shall be cancelled. This order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 19-9-1985. On the same day the complianant moved an application for examining one witness, whose name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. The learned Magistrate allowed that prayer and permitted the complainant to examine the witness.

(3.) The present petition has been filed against both these orders. It has been contended that the learned Magistrate should not have permitted the complainant to examine the witness not named in the list of witnesses, and even if such permission was to be granted, it should have been granted after all the witnesses mentioned in the list were examined.