KARTAR KAUR Vs. BIKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner instituted a complaint under Section 494, Indian Penal Code, against Bikkar Singh respondent and under Sections 494/120- B against the other respondents. THE Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, issued process and conducted the trial. In the pre-charge evidence, the petitioner led her evidence, which included two eye-witnesses to the alleged second marriage, being Kishan P.W. 2 and Karnail Singh P.W. 3 as also Hakam Singh P.W. 7, the Granthi who performed the marriage. One Manjit Singh P.W. 8 was also examined to show that the second marriage had taken place between Guddi and Bikkar Singh respondent. THEre upon, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the requisite charges. THE accused persons opted for further cross-examining the witnesses. At that stage, some of the accused respondent moved the Court of Session for quashing the charges, for according to them there was not sufficient evidence, which if unrebutted, would lead to their conviction. Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, vide order, now sought to be revised, set aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordering framing of the charges against the respondents. He thereupon discharged the respondents which has led to the filing of the present revision petition.

(2.) HAVING beard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view - that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Bhatinda, needs to be set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge commented adversely on the evidence of Hakam Singh, Granthi, by observing that there appeared to no reason for taking him, being a resident of Bhatinda, for the purpose of performing the Anand Karaj at village Dharangwal. With regard to the evidence of Kishan P.W. 2 and Karnail Singh P.W. 3, he commented that they could not depose about tile necessary ceremonies of Anand Karaj. The witnesses had deposed, however, that the marriage of Guddi with Bikkar Singh had taken place by Anand Karal. Marriage by Anand Karaj and what it involves is by now well known. It is a recognised form of marriage. The credibility of the witnesses in that regard could be tested by cross-examination. It happens to be that the accused persons have already opted for further cross-examination of the witnesses. Any Court could have believed these three witnesses to prove the commission of the offence, and equally another Court could have dishelieved them to record acquittal of the accused. But at the stage at which the learned. Magistrate was in the trial, it could not be said that the evidence of theseT witnesses was necessarily and in all events had to be dishelieved or discarded. At that stage, it was not proper for a Court of revision to interfere to supply its view on the subject, when another view had been taken by the learned Magistrate, on the basis of a strong prima facie case, justifying framing of charges against the respondents. Thus, it seems to me, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, improperly and illegally interfered in the matter. Thus, his order is set aside as also the order of discharge of the respondents. The trial should now proceed from the stage before the same Court from where it was scuttled. Parties through their counsel are directed put in appearance before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, on 29 January, 1985. Ordered accordingly.