CHANDER PARKASH NAGPAL Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th November, 1988 of Sh. Manjit Singh, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, whereby he found a prima-facie case under section 494 read with section 109 IPC and framed charge-sheet against Chander Parkash and Geeta under section 494 IPC and the remaining accused under section 494 read with section 109 IPC.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent, Hari Singh complainant (father of Surinder Kaur alias Veena) filed a complaint under section 494 read with section 109 IPC alleging that his daughter Surinder Kaur was married to Chander Parkash on 8-12-1982 at Panipat according to Anand Karaj rites. He spent about Rs. 80,000/- in the marriage and gave adequate dowry but his son-in law, Chander Parkash, the latter's father and mother and other family members harassed Veena, daughter of the complainant, for bringing inadequate she was turned out of the house by the accused in wearing apparels and accused Sheilo mother of Chander Parkash accused and the latter's sitters Asha and Seema left her (Veena) at the bus stand, Panipat and threatened her to be put to death. The accused also threatened the complainant in the presence of Biradari and the Panchayat that they will perform the second marriage. Later on, Chander Parkash accused performed the second marriage in April, 1985, according to Hindu rites, with co-accused Gita, daughter of Jeewan Dass. D. L. Verma, Amrik Singh, Kashmir and Smt. Bindra participated in the second marriage. All the remaining accused were present at the time of second marriage and they told the witnesses that Chander Parkash had divorced his first wife. On 10-8-1985, in the Biradari Panchayat, all the accused, except Jeewan Dass, confessed their guilt regarding the second marriage.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned trial Court, the statement of the complainant was corroborated by the testimony of PW7 J.C. Chaudhary and the cumulative reading of the evidence prima facie proved that Chander Parkash was married with Veena daughter of the complainant. The court found that the testimony of PW2 D.L. Verma and that of PW7 I.C. Chaudhary prima facie proved that the accused Chander Parkash had performed the second marriage with Gita accused and that their evidence also proved that all the accused participated in the second marriage and performed the marriage ceremonies. Voters' list produced by the trial court also prima facie proved that the accused Chander Parkash had performed the second marriage with Gita. Considering the totality of evidence produced before it, the trial court proceeded to frame the charges, as discussed hereinbefore.