SURJIT SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURJIT Singh petitioner has come up in revision in this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of Shri H.S. Bakshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepure, dated 9th September, 1983, by which he accepted the revision of Pritam Kaur respondent and ordered further inquiry by the trial Magistrate.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this revision are as follows. Pritam Kaur respondent filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and four others alleging therein that the petitioner was married to her in the year 1966 and that he contracted a second marriage during her life time with Sant Kaur and that Sant Kaur, Makhan Singh, Dial Singh and Gian Singh, co-accused of the petitioner in that case, knew full well that Surjit Singh petitioner was already married and that they aided and abetted the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, summoned the petitioner and his other four co-accused. The evidence before the charge was recorded in the presence of the petitioner and his co-accused. Pritam Kaur respondent closed her evidence on 12th of January, 1983. The learned Magistrate vide his order dated 31st January, 1983, after considering the evidence led before the charge came to a finding that the complainant had failed to prove a prima facie case against the petitioner and his co-accused and that there was not sufficient evidence on record which could justify the framing of the charge and discharged the petitioner and his co-accused. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Magistrate, Shrimati Pritam Kaur respondent filed a revision which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the aforesaid impugned order. Hence, this revision by Surjit Singh.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Harbans Singh Senior Advocate, learned counsel for Pritam Kaur respondent, has vehemently contended (1) that the learned Magistrate was not entitled to weigh the evidence at the time of the framing of the charge, (2) that there is documentary evidence on the record in the form of sale-deed Exhibit P-1 executed by the petitioner in favour of his second wife wherein she has been shown as wife (3) that there is the evidence of extrajudicial confession made by Sant Kaur before Darshan Singh brother-in law of Pritam Kaur respondent and (4) that there is the oral evidence of two witnesses, namely, Krishan Singh and Makhan Singh who were allegedly present at the time of the Anand Karaj ceremony.