SURAJ LAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet (Annexure No. 4) under Section 494 I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The applicant, in this case, was married with opposite party No. 2 on 30.6.1975. In the year 1977, the father of the opposite party No. 2 pretended that his younger daughter is ill and took opposite party no. 2 to his residence. Thereafter, she was never sent back to her matrimonial home. Subsequently, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against the applicant, which was dismissed by the Magistrate on 24.5.1983 and the revision was also dismissed on 2.11.1983. The opposite party No. 2 then filed a petition under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, which was decreed ex-parte against the applicant. The applicant sent a registered notice to the opposite party No. 2 on 13.10.1987 asking to intimate the date on which the applicant should bring her back home. The opposite party No. 2 thereafter lodged a report under Section 4941.P.C. and after investigation a final report was submitted. However, on further investigation, a charge sheet was submitted. The allegations were that the applicant had, during the lifetime of the opposite party No. 2, married with one Smt. Meena Jaiswal, whereas Smt. Meena Jaiswal was the wife of applicant's elder brother Vidya Sagar Jaiswal.

(2.) The applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet on the ground that the evidence collected by the investigating officer does not prove that Smt. Meena Jaiswal was ever married with the applicant. No Havan or Saptapadi has been proved. In fact Smt. Meena Jaiswal is wife of applicant's eleder brother Vidya Sagar Jaiswal who lived in Varanasi since 1984. She had also given birth to a son on 10.8.1987 at Nazreth Hos- pital, Allahabad. The certificate is annexed as Annexure No. 5. The witness examined is opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kamla. No other witness was examined. It was stated that applicant's father, two brothers in-law and others had attended the marriage but no statement has been recorded. Salik Ram Jaiswal, father of opposite party No. 2 had only given a hear-say evidence. The applicant filed a petition under Section 13. Hindu Marriage Act against the opposite party No. 2 which has been decreed on 19.9.1988 and their marriage stands dissolved. On these grounds, the quashing of the charge sheet has been claimed. The applicant filed a Supplementary Affidavit annexing certain statements.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 2 on the ground that she was turned out of the house forecefully and hence she was forced to live with her parents. The application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been wrongly rejected. The applicant has been unkind and cruel to opposite party No. 2. The police was in collusion with the applicant, hence submitted the final report. However, by the indulgence of the circle officer, the case was further investigated and charge sheet was submitted. Smt. Meena Jaiswal is not the wife of the elder brother of the applicant but is the second wife of the applicant with whom he has married during the life time of the opposite party No. 2. The investigating officer interrogated all the relevant witnesses and their evidence is reliable. The applicant obtained appex oarte decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and when opposite party No. 2 came to know of this fact, she filed an appeal before this Court.