(1.) SHRI Karam Singh; Advocate, filed a Private complaint against the respondents for the offence under Sections 420/34, Indian Penal Code. On this complaint, the evidence offered by the complainant was recorded and ultimately after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jullundur, found that a prima facie case under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the respondents and they were accordingly charged there under.
(2.) BEING aggrieved by this order of the Learned Magistrate, the present petitioner has approached this Court in this revision.
(3.) I have gone through the evidence recorded in the case. To state shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant was in need of a suitable match for his young daughter Satnam Kaur aged about 23 years. Gurcharan Singh, respondent No. 1 approached the complainant and proposed the name of his relation Amarjit Singh, Respondent No. 3, for the marriage with Satnam Kaur and represented that he (Amarjit Singh) was a handsome, healthy boy and fit for marriage and that he was about 23/24 years of age. Amarjit Singh was in fact impotent and unfit for marriage and these facts came to the notice of the complainant after the marriage of Satnam Kaur with Amarjit Singh was performed. The representations made by the respondents were a false and were intentionally made to mislead complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had to spend huge amount of money on the marriage of Satnam Kaur and that the respondents did not intentionally disclose to him the physical infirmities of Amarjit Singh even during the betrothal ceremony or at the time of marriage. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the evidence led by the complainant came to the conclusion that only an offence under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, was made out against the respondents.