SAROJ Vs. SHAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the opposite party against applicants 1,3, 4 and 5 along with four others under Section 494, I.P.C. It has been alleged that the opposite-party is the married wife of Pooran Mal. The applicant No. 1 had married Pooran Mal During the life time of his living wife (the opposite oarty). During the marriage, applicant No. 4 and her husband Har Prasad had performed Kanyadan. The applicant No, 3 Shambhu Dayal being brother of applicant No. 1 had also performed Kanyadan and heloed in the marriage. The applicant No. 5 Bhikki Singh being the maternal uncle had performed some other rituals of the marriage. It was, therefore, urged that all of them have committed offence under Section 494, I.P.C.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the opposite party who has filed counter-affidavit in this case. It was urged that the complaint discloses full facts which makes out a case under Section 494, I.P.C. Section 494, I.P.C. does not contain any ingredient of know­ledge. The only requirement is that "whoever having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife". There is no ingredient of any knowledge in this section. Hence absence of knowledge will not exonerate the petitioner No. 1. It was also urged that the other applicants had abetted the commission of offence of Section 494, I.P.C. "by applicant No. 1. They had aided the petitioner No. 1 by partici­pating in the marriage ceremony and performing some of the rituals. Then they were equally punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. It cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose any offence.