SURINDER SINGH Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDER Singh, husband of Manjit Kaur, his parents, Karnail Singh and Smt. Shanti as also his sister Devinder Kaur, through present petition filed by them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seek quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1, instituted by Manjit Kaur under Sections 415/417/500/34/109 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as also aftermath thereof i.e. the summoning order dated April 12, 1994, Annexure P-2.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is that whereas, petitioner No. 1 is a government servant serving as Lecturer in Government College, Ludhiana, his father Karnail Singh has recently retired from a prestigious status being Head of the English department Khalsa College, Amritsar and his mother petitioner No. 3 is his wife. His sister petitioner No. 4 is also a Lecturer in Khalsa College, Amritsar. Petitioner Surinder Singh was married with respondent on April 20, 1986 according to Sikh rites. She, however, after sometime moved an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaration that the marriage was nullity. In her petition aforesaid she pleaded that petitioner No. 1 her husband was impotent and the marriage, therefore, had not been consummated. Her aforesaid petition, however, failed before the trial Court but this Court in appeal preferred by her allowed the same on August 20, 1993 by holding that petitioner No. 1 Surinder Singh was actually impotent. The decree aforesaid assumed finality as the same was not challenged further. It is thereafter that the respondent-wife preferred a complaint under Sections 415/417/500/34/109/120-B IPC against all the petitioners. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate, seized of the matter, summoned the petitioners on April 12, 1994 under aforesaid sections of the IPC. The allegations constituting various offences detailed above are that all the petitioners knew that petitioner No. 1 was impotent and they had fraudulently persuaded the respondent to marry him.

(3.) THIS Court was inclined to go into this question in detail and to express an opinion on the point stressed by the learned counsel one way or the other but after going through the reply filed in the matter, it is not thought proper at this stage to comment upon the merits of the point, noted above. It is evident from the complaint in question and the reply to the petition filed in this Court that allegations against all the petitioners are not only with regard to conspiracy of the mother and sister of the husband but it is also with regard to defamation of the complainant, narration of which shall be given hereinafter and if the complaint as a whole cannot be quashed against the petitioners, on whose behalf arguments have been raised, it will be an exercise in futility to go into the only question canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners.