MANISHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of Criminal Complaint under Sections 494, 109, 114 of Indian Penal Code, titled as "Smt. Kusum Lata v. Jaswinder Beniwal and others" pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and the summoning order dated 12.7.2000, passed therein. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, who is respondent No. 2, filed a complaint against the petitioner and also a number of other persons. She lodged FIR No. 348 dated 16.6.1997, under Sections 498-A, 323, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. The complainant alleged that she had got married to Jaswinder Beniwal on 25.10.1995, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at House No. 1100/2, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh in the presence of close relatives. The marriage was solemnised at Chandigarh, where the couple resided after marriage. The complainant conceived and she received a message from the petitioner that she should come and live with them at Hisar, pursuant to which, she went to Hisar on 4.12.1996. She was then taken to Jaipur after a period of two days, where she developed some complications and was taken to hospital at Jaipur for check-up. She realised subsequently that the foetus had been aborted without her knowledge and consent. The doctor disclosed that it was done with the consent of her husband. Her husband Jaswinder Beniwal used to misbehave with her under the influence of liquor. In March, 3997, her husband and the petitioner threatened her that they will re-marry Jaswinder Beniwal, which forced the complainant to file a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, in which notice was issued on 5.4.1997 for 7.4.1997. Her husband, thereafter, assured her that he will not contract a second marriage. He went to Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh on 18.4.1997 and again solemnised the marriage with the complainant. Feeling reassured, the complainant withdrew the civil suit on 30.4.1997. Thereafter the couple went to Gurgaon, where they resided as husband and wife in Jalwayu Vihar, Gurgaon. She was then deserted by her husband on 15.6.1997, who came back and started residing at Hisar. The complainant along with her sister, followed him to Hisar. On the intervening night of 15/16.6.1997, when the complainant was present at her parental house, Jaswinder Beniwal took her to his house situated at Farm Colony, Barwala Road, Hisar. She was beaten up and was taken to the house of the petitioner. Other relatives were also present there. They cursed her and abused her for not bringing an Esteem Car. The complainant then lodged FIR No. 348 dated 16.6.1997 with Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar under Sections 498-A/323/148/149 IPC. All the accused persons named in the FIR were arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, it was alleged that Jaswinder Beniwal forcibly took away the record of Arya Samaj Mandir, which had issued the marriage certificate.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No. 2, is a habitual and a chronic litigant. She is also involved in several criminal cases, details of which were given in paragraph 9 of the petition, which enlisted the involvement of the complainant in as many as 10 cases, which also include the offence under Section 307 IPC. The sole allegation against the petitioner is that she knowingly contracted a marriage with Jaswinder Singh Beniwal, the alleged husband of the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Kusum against Jaswinder Singh was dismissed on 24.8.2013. He cites Sham Singh v. Sarbjit Kaur, 1998 3 RCR(Cri) 78.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent contends that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. In this regard, she refers a certificate of marriage bearing Sr. No. 336 issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh was issued to them.