R S UPADHYAYA Vs. STATEBOF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24. 12. 2007 passed by ACJM, Court No. 6, jhansi in Criminal complaint case No. 600 of 1998 whereby he directed to summon the petitioner No. 2 Namita under Sections 177, 181 and 182 IPC and petitioner No. l Dr. R. S. Upadhyaya, under Section 506 IPC and the judgment and order dated 19. 4. 2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. l, jhansi in criminal revision No. 8 of 2008 filed against this order whereby learned Judge dismissed the revision.

(2.) I have heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned AGA and have perused the material on record. Opposite party No. 2 has also filed counter affidavit in this case.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) "cr. P. C. alleging that he was married with Smt. Namita on 16. 1. 1998 before the District Marriage Officer, Jhansi according to provisions of Special Marriage act, 1954 and the marriage certificate was also issued. Before the Marriage Officer, form was filled up and affidavit was filed and Alok, Sachin and Sanjeev were the wit-nesses of the marriage. Smt Namita was taken by her parents on the false pretext and it being criminal act he filed an application against them under Section 156 (3)Cr. P. C. and case was registered under Sections 366,368,504 and 506 IPC. The respondent No. 2 and Smt, Namita loved each other and wanted to live throughout their life as husband and wife but Dr. R. S. Upadhyaya wanted to get the marriage dissolved by all means and the respondent No. 2 was threatened to sign the papers for dissolution of the marriage otherwise he would have to face the dire consequences. Respondent no. 2 also filed an application under Section 98 of the Cr. P. C. but the same was rejected on the basis of the statement and affidavit of Smt. Namita. Respondent No. 2 has also filed a case in the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending. Dr. R. S. Upadhyaya knowing that he was mak-ing false statement filed his objections in the Court and Smt. Namita also filed affidavit and gave a false statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and said that she never appeared before the Marriage Officer and no marriage took place. According to the respondent, Court was misguided by false affidavits and statement and even the marriage certificate was alleged to be false document. This is contempt of Court. In the circumstances, he prayed that the case be registered.