KUNU ALIAS MURALIDHAR PADHAN Vs. BUDHU SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Reference made by the Sessions Judge, Bolangir-Kalahandi, arises under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE complaint Budhu Sahu of village Musapali in the district of Kalahandi claims to have married Mst. Ukia some years back and lived as husband and wife for about two years. Accused Narayan is the father of Ukia. One day Narayan and his wife and accused Janga came to the house of the complainant and took away Ukia on the pretext that her brother was seriously ill. When the complainant went to his father-in-law's house to bring back his wife, they refused to leave her with him and subsequently gave Ukia in marriage to Kunu alias Muralidhar of village deodharha in the district of Bolangir where both of them lived as husband and wife.

(3.) THE complainant filed a criminal case under sections 497 and 498, I. P. C. against the accused persons on 27-7-60 in the Court of the S. D. M. Nawapara in Kalahandi district. The accused persons, however, were discharged under Section 253 (1) Cr. P. C. by an order of the Magistrate, dated 19-4-61, on the ground that the marriage of the complainant with accused Ukia had not been proved. Against this order, the complainant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, but the revision petition (6/k of 1961) was dismissed on 22-12-61. The complainant thereafter filed another complaint (89/69) before the S. D. M. Nawapara against the same accused persons on the same set of facts under sections 494/498 I. P. C. but the learned magistrate dismissed the said complaint holding that he had no jurisdiction as the marriage of Ukia with Kunu was alleged to have taken place in village Deodarha in the district of Bolangir. Thereafter the complainant filed a third complaint on 27-3-63 in the court of the S. D. M. Patnagarh in the district of bolangir against the same accused persons on the very same facts. In this case the accused persons pleaded that the complaint petition was not maintainable in view of the previous order of discharge passed by the magistrate, 1st class nawapara, in case No. 40/61 which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 6/k "of 1961. The learned S. D. M. Patnagarh rejected the contention of the accused persons by his order dated 24-9-63 and proceeded to hear the case. Against this order of rejection, the accused persons preferred Cr. Revision no. 15-B/63 before the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge while upholding the contention of the accused persons, made a reference to this court mainly, on the ground that the complainant should not be permitted to proceed with the trial against the same accused persons and on the same set of facts as repeated complaints on the same facts were made with a view to harass the accused persons. Therefore the only question for consideration in this reference is whether the proceedings (No. 33 of 1963 IT. R. 114 of 1963) pending in the court of the S. D. M. Patnagarh should be quashed or allowed to proceed.