SURESH CHANDRA BHARDWAJ Vs. GOPAL DAS MUDGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. P. Semwal, J. The present application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed by Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj, who is the complainant in Criminal Case No. 1364 of 1990-Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Gopal Das Mudgal under Section 497, IPC, pending in the Court of IVth Addl. Chief Judicial Magis trate, Agra. The applicant has made a prayer that the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra may be directed to take the evidence of the applicant as per application dated 2-1-1992 under Section 311, Cr PC (Annexure IX ).

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record of the case. It would be relevant to set out the facts of this case which has driven the applicant to this Court under Section 482, Crpc. The applicant alleged himself to be the husband of Snot. Shakuntala Devi, who is the sister-in-law (Sail) of the opposite party Sri Gopal Das Mudgal The applicant had |filed |the complaint against the opposite party under Section 497 of the IPC alleging that his marriage was performed with Smt. Shakuntala Devi in February, 1973 according to the Hindu rites at Agra that his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi without his permission went to her home in September 1973 and since 1976-77. She openly started living as the wife of opposite party Sri Gopal Das Mudgal and further that the said opposite party had cohabitation with Smt. Shakuntala Devi against the wishes of the applicant. It has also been alleged that on 2-1-1984 at about 4. 15 p. m. a female child was born at Maternity Ward, Women Hospital Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) and the said Smt. Shakuntala Devi got her name entered in the Hospital record as wife of Sri Gopal Das Mudgal. It has further been alleged that after Smt. Shakuntala Devi left the house of the applicant, he did not have any sextual intercourse with her.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I find that it is not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr PC. The lower court has not rejected the application of the complainant for summoning the aforementioned two witnesses under Section 311. Crpc. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is that there is a specific mention in the complaint itself that a female child was born at Dhaulpur Government Maternity Hospital on 2-1-1984 and that the evidence of the Docror is material for the purposes of proving the ingredients of Sec. 497, IPC. It is further argued that the evidence of the clerk of the District Supply Office alongwith enquiry report for the purposes of ration card is alo material in the matter. It is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on merits but the lower Court will apply its mind judicial and if the evidence of the aforesaid to witnesses appears to be material and essential for the just decision of the case, then the lower court will exercise its discretion for summoning the aforesaid two witnesses for securing the ends of justice in the case.