RISALO Vs. SHAKUNTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the Code) praying quashment of Judicial Magistrate's order Annexure P5 and resultant proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, arising out of a private complaint titled Shakuntla v. Suraj Bhan and others filed by respondent Shakuntla under Sections 494 and 494/109 IPC and under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) THE complainant-respondent Shakuntla filed complaint Annexure P-1 averring that she was married to accused Suraj Bhan on April 22, 1984, as per Hindu rites in village Subana District Rohtak. After marriage she lived with accused Suraj Bhan in village Sherpur Kharkhouda. She also visited Visakhapatnam and stayed there for some time along with her husband. The marriage was consummated. Accused Suraj Bhan was in service of Indian Navy. When he was residing in Navy Nagar, Bombay, he got prepared family identity card wherein she was shown as his wife along with her photograph. Suraj Bhan accused was not satisfied with the complainant as she was not highly educated and not so beautiful. Petitioner-accused Risalo, is sister and Balwan Singh and Ram Singh are brothers of accused Suraj Bhan. These petitioners-accused started taunting complainant for bringing less dowry. They also instigated accused Suraj Bhan that he should marry another girl with higher education. They sometimes suggested other families and proposed girls for his second marriage. She also averred that while Suraj Bhan was living in Narasapur in Andhra Pradesh, he met accused A. Annapurna. Suraj Bhan accused married A. Annapurna on May 20, 1990, as per Hindu rites. A. Annapurna also knew before marrying Suraj Bhan that the latter was already married to the complainant who is still alive. Thus, according to the complainant, accused Suraj Bhjan and A. Annapurna have committed an offence under Section 494 IPC and petitioners- accused 2 to 4 have instigated accused Suraj Bhan to enter into second marriage alliance and thus have committed an offence under section 494/109 IPC.

(3.) COMPLAINANT filed revision petition against the said order, challenging the finding of non-summoning of petitioners-accused 2 to 4 vide order Annexure P-2. Mr. T.C. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, decided this revision on December 2, 1993 (Annexure P-3) and observed that the learned Magistrate has simply not summoned accused 2 to 4 on the ground that in the photographs of the marriage of accused Suraj Bhan and A. Annapurna these petitioners- accused are not visible. Oral evidence adduced by the complainant was not considered by the learned Magistrate, whereby all the three witnesses have categorically stated that these accused 2 to 4 instigated accused Suraj Bhan to perform second marriage. Hence he ordered that these petitioners-accused be also summoned and tried along with other two accused. Thereafter these petitioner-accused 2 to 4 were summoned by the Magistrate, before whom this case was pending. These petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed a petition under section 245 of the Code, which was declined vide order dated May 28, 1994 (Annexure P-4). Their revision petition was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide order dated August 17, 1995 (Annexure P-5). Hence these petitioners-accused filed this petition under section 482 of the Code for quashing the aforementioned orders Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5.