SAU SANGITA Vs. SOU SUREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Criminal Revision No.21 of 2006 as well as in companion revisions, being Criminal Revision No.42 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No.34 of 2006, is subjected to challenge in these matters. The Revisional Court, while dismissing the criminal revisions tendered by the accused, proceeded to allow the revision tendered by the respondent/complainant and further directed issuance of process against the original accused Nos.8 to 16 for offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Magistrate, while dealing with the complaint tendered by the respondent/complainant, had earlier directed issuance of process against original accused Nos.1 to 7 in view of the order passed on 222006. The Revisional Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and in addition thereto, was pleased to summon the remaining accused arrayed in the complaint.

(2.) Criminal Revision No.187 of 2006 is presented by the original accused Nos.8 to 16 raising exception to the order passed by the Revisional Court, whereas both the criminal applications, being Criminal Application No.2428 of 2006 and 2429 of 2006, are presented by the rest of the accused calling in question the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing issuance of process against them.

(3.) The complainant in the complaint tendered by her alleges that the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 Nandu was solemnized on 751999. However, on account of matrimonial disputes, they started residing separate since 171999. It is alleged that accused No.1 Nandu entered into wedlock with accused No.2 Archana on 2632001. The complainant thus alleges that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, as they entered into wedlock while the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 Nandu was still subsisting. It is further alleged that the other accused named in the complaint have aided and abetted commission of offence by accused Nos.1 and 2.