HANS RAJ RASEWAT Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and the summoning order dated 22.5.1987 passed by the learned Magistrate, ordering the summoning of the accused petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 494/109 IPC.

(2.) IN the present petition filed by accused petitioner Hans Raj, it was alleged that the petitioner is father of Ghansham Lal, who had married Sarita Rani, daughter of complainant respondent No. 1 Des Raj. It was alleged that Des Raj, complainant had filed a false complaint under Sections 404/109 IPC against petitioner and other relatives of the petitioner (respondents 2 to 6) and they have been falsely implicated as accused. It was alleged that in the criminal complaint, it was alleged by Des Raj, complainant, that the accused Ghansham Lal had contracted second marriage with one Asha Rani during the subsistence of his earlier marriage with Sarita Rani (daughter of Des Raj, complainant) and that the other accused had participated in the marriage. It was alleged that no offence, whatsoever was made out against the accused petitioner. It was alleged that from the allegations made in the complaint, it was not proved that Ghansham Lal had contracted second marriage, during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. It was alleged that complaint was based on hearsay evidence. It was further alleged that the preliminary evidence led by the complainant was also insufficient to summon the petitioner as accused. It was alleged that since the solemnization of earlier marriage was not proved, the petitioner had not committed an offence. It was further alleged that the complaint was filed not by the first wife but by Des Raj, complainant. It was alleged that only first wife could be said to be aggrieved against the second marriage and she alone was competent to file the complaint. It was further alleged that the criminal complaint and the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate were abuse of the process of the court and were liable to be quashed. It was accordingly prayed that the complaint, summoning order and all subsequent proceedings be quashed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.