MAYA DEVI Vs. SATYAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAYA Devi, complainant, was married to Satyawan on 1.3.1970. Some dispute arose between the parties in the year 1987 leading to proceedings before the Matrimonial Court. Maya Devi also filed a complaint under Section 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that Satyawan had contracted a second marriage with Saroj Bala and a child also had allegedly been born out of the marriage. The accused Satyawan, Chander Mukhi, his mother Saroj Bala, his wife, the mother of Saroj Bala and two others, namely, Dhana Ram and Dharam Singh were summoned vide order dated 5.8.1991. The complainant did not appear in Court on 20.1.1992 due to some misunderstanding on which the complaint was dismissed. She filed another complaint on which the accused were once again summoned to face trial under Section 494/120-B of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 3.7.1992. A revision petition was thereafter filed by Satyawan before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, who vide his order dated 8.3.1994 allowed the petition by holding that a second complaint was not maintainable.

(2.) IT is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) I undoubtedly find merit in the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question, however, is as to whether the accused should be prosecuted any further. Admittedly, the parties had got married in the year 1970 and a dispute had arisen between them in the year 1987, which had resulted in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. The first complaint was filed in the year 1990 and dismissed on 20.1.1992. The second complaint had been filed on 3.3.1992 in which the accused, who were arraigned were Satyawan, Saroj Bala as also the mothers of Satyawan and Saroj Bala and several other persons. To my mind, it would be wholly unfair to summon the accused to face trial in view of the passage of time.