DARSHAN SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel contends that in compliance of Court's order, he has placed on record copies of the complaint and evidence adduced by the complainant under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He contends that from this complaint and the evidence placed on record, it is evident that there is no averment in the complaint and no evidence on record to prove even prima facie that these petitioners have committed an offence under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, he contends that the lower Revisional Court has wrongly set aside the order of the trial Magistrate whereby he declined to register the complaint against these petitioners and thus the petitioners were not summoned by him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot has set aside that order and has directed the learned Magistrate to hold an enquiry as contemplated under the law and then pass appropriate order. According to him, petitioners 1 and 2 are brothers, petitioners No. 3 is mother, petitioner No. 4 is mossa and petitioner No. 5 is mama of the husband while petitioners 6 and 7 are mother and brother respectively of the alleged second wife. Simply because these persons were present at the time when the alleged marriage was performed and they accepted some shagan, it cannot be hold that they instigated in any way the main accused Bhola Singh in performing second marriage with Bhajan Kaur-accused No. 8. Relying on Surjit Singh v. Pritam Kaur, 1985(2) RecentCR 150, he contended that unless the order of Magistrate was perverse and manifestly wrong, the Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside that order even if he formed a different view on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant. He further submitted that to curb the growing tendency to rope in all other relations of the husband or of second wife, the learned Additional Sessions Judge's impugned order be quashed as there is no averment in the complaint and no evidence is adduced to show that these petitioners in any way instigated accused No. 1 to contract the second marriage with accused No. 8. To support this proposition, he has relied upon Anil Sharma v. S.N. Marwaha, 1995(1) RecentCR 415 and Chander Parkash Nagpal v. Hari Singh, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 126.

(2.) IN Surjit Singh's case, it is held by a Single Bench of this High Court that the Sessions Judge is not justified to set aside the order of Magistrate for the reason alone that he formed a different view from the evidence of complainant unless the order of Magistrate was perverse and manifestly wrong. In Chander Parkash Nagpal's case (supra) the complaint was filed under Sections 494, 109 and 107, Indian Penal Code, wherein the Court held that there was no allegation or evidence that the petitioner in that case instigated the husband to contract the second marriage. In Anil Sharma's case (supra) an observation is made that the complaint has been filed for causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation of the petitioners, judicial process ought not to be permitted as an instrument of oppression and needless harassment as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra Prashad Sinha, 1992(3) Recent CR 344 : AIR 1992 SC 1815. The fast developing tendency of falsely implicating all members of family in criminal cases must be deprecated and effectively curbed. Permitting such complaints to proceed in the Court would clearly amount to total abuse of the process of Court for an extraneous consideration.

(3.) IN my considered view, this order is neither perverse nor manifestly wrong. He has not directed the Magistrate to summon these petitioners as accused persons, the direction given is only to hold an enquiry as contemplated under the law and than pass appropriate order. In view of this fact, the above authorities are inapplicable in this case. The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being meritless, is hereby dismissed.