SUMITRA DEVI Vs. GURDAS MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJAY Kumar was married to Rajni Bala at Jalandhar on 5th May, 1985. During the subsistence of the earlier marriage aforesaid Ajay Kumar is alleged to have remarried Veena a second time at Mansa Devi temple in Ambala district of Haryana State on 26th September, 1988. Father of Rajni Bala has filed criminal complaint Annexure P1 against Ajay Kumar, his parents, newly wedded wife Veena, parents of the new wife, brother of the husband and brother-in-law of the husband for their prosecution under section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Summoning order Annexure P2 was made therein by the learned trial court on 23rd October,1989. Feeling aggrieved thereform parents of the bridegroom have jointly filed Criminal Misc. No. 7096-M of 1990 for quashing of the complaint Annexure P1 and the summoning order Annexure P2 on the grounds that no abetment is attributed to the petitioners in regard to the performance of second marriage of their son, that complaint Annexure P1 does not appear to have been filed by Gurdas Mal, father of Rajni Bala of behalf of Rajni Bala or under her authority that petitioner No. 2 Sohan Lal father of Ajay Kumar was, in fact, an indoor patient in Dyanand Medical College Hospital, Ludhiana, from 20th August, 1989 to 29th September, 1988 and could not, therefore, be present at the time of the alleged second marriage on 26th September,1988 and that both the petitioners have nothing to go with their son Ajay Kumar as notified by them in the local paper 'Rover' published from Ludhiana on 31st March, 1989 and 1st April, 1989.

(2.) I have heard Sarvshri G.S. Punia and K.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has referred me to the observations made in Muthammal and 5 others v. Maruthathal, 1981 The Law Weekly (Crimina) 80; Karuppiah Servai and others v. Nagavalli Ammal, 1982 Criminal Law Journal 1362; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Reports 73 and Resham Singh and others v. Kartar Singh and others, 1983(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 497 : volume LXXXVI 1984 Punjab Law Reporter 78 as authorities for the view that mere passive witnesses of the second marriage are not guilty of abetment, that to prove second marriage performance of essential marriage ceremonies is necessary to be alleged and proved and that this court would quash the proceedings if on the allegations made in the complaint no offence is constituted. None of the authorities cited is applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case. Active participation contradistinguished from mere passive presence is attributed to the two petitioners at the time of performance of second marriage of their son Ajay Kumar at Mansa Devi Temple on 26th September,1988. All the essential ceremonies of 'Kanya Dan', 'Havan' and 'Satpadi' are stated to have been duly performed before the holy fire at the time of its performance. The argument advanced is thus wholly without merit and the authorities cited do not support.