SUREKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the criminal revisions are connected with the common order dated 28-1-2013 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, therefore, those are decided with this common order.

(2.) The 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal vide order dated 28-1-2013 in ST No. 76/2013 discharged the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of Cr. R. No. 309/2013 (hereinafter they would be referred as "accused") from the charge of Section 376 of IPC and trial was directed under Section 228 of Cr. P.C. to the CJM, Bhopal for trial of the offence under Sections 493, 420 and 120-A of IPC. Being aggrieved with the discharge of the accused persons from the charge of offence under Section 376 of IPC, the applicant of Cr. R. No. 309/2013 and the State have preferred the present revisions whereas the applicants (accused) of Cr. R. No. 589/2013 have preferred the revision against the impugned order that no offence under Sec. 420 or 493 or 120-A of IPC is made out against them.

(3.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the prosecutrix had lodged an FIR that on 16-7-2012 she was introduced to the accused Satyendra Kumar Vyas and a sagai was done between them and thereafter on 7-8-2012 a marriage took place between the prosecutrix and the accused Satyendra Kumar Vyas. Thereafter she remained in her parental house and the accused Satyendra Kumar Vyas was often visiting her in that house. He had physical relations with the prosecutrix from time to time. He got an affidavit of the prosecutrix executed, which was duly notarized before the Notary R. N. Tripathi. Thereafter the prosecutrix was residing with the accused persons in the house situated at Sant Asharam Nagar, Bhopal. On 21-8-2012 one woman namenly Apekchha came to the house and she intimated that she was married wife of accused Satyendra Kumar Vyas and she had two children. She was residing with her parents, however no divorce took place between Apekchha and accused Satyendra Kumar Vyas. After sometime Apekchha came back on 10-9-2012 and abused the prosecutrix and directed her to leave the house. Thereafter the prosecutrix had lodged an FIR.