NIRANJAN SINGH GUPTA (WRONGLY DESCRIBED IN COMPLAINT AS NIRANJAN LAL) S/O DHAN PARKASH OF YAMUNA NAGAR Vs. ANAND PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANAND Parkash respondent filed a complaint under Sections 494, 403, 406 and 109, Indian Penal Code, against seven persons, one of whom happened to be his sons's wife, the principal accused. It was alleged that she had married a second time while her marriage with his son was subsisting. It was also alleged that at one point of time she had been given some ornaments and articles. It is not clear from the complaint as to who gave her the said articles. All the same, the learned Magistrate chose to summon the accused persons under Sections 494/403/406 of the Indian Code. Thereupon, one of the accused persons has filed the present petition for revision.

(2.) THE first point of jurisdiction raised is that a complaint under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code could only be filed by the husband of the alleged bigamist. Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pleaded as the bar. The argument raised indeed is unexceptionable. The learned counsel for the respondent has no answer to it. Accordingly, the summoning order so far as it relates to Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is totally without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE second contention herein is that the learned Magistrate has not given any reasons of his own to summon the accused persons. The order reads as follows : -