JUGRAJ SINGH Vs. GURMEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Sec. 378(4) of the Cr.P.C., seeking grant of leave to appeal, has been filed by the present applicant against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court concerned, in a private complaint No. 16 dtd. 20/9/2014, registered under Ss. 494, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant, who is complainant, has proved charges by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which has not been appreciated by the learned trial court concerned, in its right perspective. He has further submitted that Mark-C3, which is the self suffered statement of Gurmeet Kaur accused-respondent no. 1, proved that she has solemnized second marriage during the life time of her husband Jugraj Singh (the present complainant-applicant). He has also submitted that the statement of Bhupinder Singh, who is an independent witness, and has stepped into the witness box as CW3, clearly proved the factum that Gurmeet Kaur has solemnized marriage with respondent No. 2-Ramesh Singh, on dtd. 28/7/2014. However, his evidence was also not considered by the learned trial court concerned, who, in fact, participated as a guest in the second marriage as solemnized between the respondents no. 1 and 2. Finally, he has submitted that the defence which the respondents-accused have taken before the learned trial court concerned, itself proved that the second marriage was solemnized, as they have relied upon a customary divorce, which, in fact, establishes that the respondents-accused, on the basis of that customary divorce, solemnized the second marriage on dtd. 28/7/2014.

(3.) This Court has examined the judgment passed by the learned trial court concerned. The complaint in the instant matter was filed by the applicant with the allegations that his marriage was solemnized with accused No.1, on dtd. 25/9/2012. However, she never liked the complainant and often used to leave the complainant's company because she wanted to marry someone else. He also filed petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against accused no.1 which was decided in his favour, vide judgment and decree dtd. 26/2/2014. However, inspite of the same, accused No.1 solemnized her second marriage with accused No.2, on dtd. 28/7/2014, without getting her first marriage dissolved. Other accused abetted the said marriage and Bhupinder Singh, son of Teja Singh, witnessed the said marriage being performed at village Kalotha, Tehsil Ratia. The said Bhupinder Singh also tried to intervene in the said marriage but accused refused to entertain/listen to him.