UJJAGAR SINGH NUMBERDAR Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seven petitioners namely Ujjagar Singh, Malkiat Singh, Bakshish Singh, Bakshish Kaur, Amarjit Kaur, Smt. Malkiat Kaur and Nirmal Singh, have come up in a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking therein the quashment of Annexures P-i, P-2 and P-3.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to the present petition, in brief, are that Surjit Kaur (since deceased) filed a complaint against the present petitioners and Surjit Singh (since absconder) son of Ujjagar Singh petitioner under section 420, 494 and 120-B I.P.C. alleging therein that Surjit Singh performed marriage ceremony with Smt. Kuljit Kaur without disclosing that he was married earlier and his first wife was living and that thereby committed an offence under section 494 I.P.C. and the present petitioners abetted the commission of the aforesaid offence. After recording preliminary evidence the learned trial Magistrate summoned the petitioners and their co-accused Surjit Singh and vide his order dated 2nd of September, 1983 which is annexed to the petition as Annexure P-2, the trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a case under section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C. was made out. In pursuance of that order the learned trial Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioners on 17.9.1983 under section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C. which is Annexure P-2 to the petition. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-i, the petitioners filed a revision in the Court of Session at Hoshiarpur. The revision petition came up for final disposal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who vide his order dated 5th December, 1983, dismissed the same. The copy of that order is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Session Judge, the petitioners have come up to this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

(3.) The short ground taken up by Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the complaint under section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C. is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 198 Cr. P.C. as according to which only the aggrieved party is competent to file the complaint. In the present case the second wife is not the aggrieved party, it is only the first wife who is aggrieved party and only she was competent to file the complaint under Section 494 I.P.C. if she so desired. In this context, he has placed reliance on Single Bench authorities of this Court reported as Jarnail Singh v. Sh. Kuldip Bakhsi, Advocate, wherein it has been held that second wife does not fall in the category of aggrieved persons as envisaged in Section 198 Cr. P.C. This contention was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge also, but he over-ruled the same. In view of the clear law laid down in the aforesaid authorities. I am left with no option but to allow this petition and quash orders Annexure-P-1, P-2 and P-3. It is ordered accordingly. Petition allowed.