KULDIP SINGH Vs. HARPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.05.2013 passed by the trial Court vide which the respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') Brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed a complaint against the respondents Harpreet Kaur and Avtar Singh along with 11 other persons with the allegations that the applicant/complainant was married to respondent/accused No.1 Harpreet Kaur on 11.12.1996 at village Kacha Quila Raikot, District Ludhiana, however, no child was born out of this wedlock. After some time, the accused No.1 left the matrimonial home and did not return back despite the efforts made by the complainant. Thereafter, the accused No.1 got an FIR No.93 dated 10.09.1997 registered against the complainant under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Raikot and also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C') for seeking maintenance. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.12 Harinder Kaur was a mediator and in the month of June, 2000, the complainant came to know that accused No.1 has solemnized second marriage with accused No.2 Avtar Singh on 09.07.2000. It is further alleged in the complaint that the other accused instigated accused Nos.1 and 2 to perform their marriage and they actively participated in their marriage. It is also alleged in the complaint that the marriage was performed by one Parminder Singh, Granthi of Gurudwara Shashtri Nagar, Jagraon.

(2.) It is further stated in the complaint that all the accused persons knew that accused No.1 is already married with the appellant Kuldeep Singh and despite having due knowledge of the subsisting marriage of the appellant with accused No.1, all the accused, in conspiracy with each other got the marriage of accused Nos.1 and 2 performed and has, thus, committed the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 109 IPC.

(3.) The complainant in his preliminary evidence examined himself as CW1, Parminder Singh, Granthi as CW2, one Gurdev Singh a CW3 and Gurmeet Kaur as CW4. The witnesses deposed on the line of the complaint and, thereafter, the preliminary evidence was closed and the trial Court summoned only accused Nos.1 and 2 to face the trial for committing the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 109 IPC, however, the complaint qua accused Nos.3 to 13 was dismissed. After the accused persons appeared, they were granted bail by the trial Court. The complainant led his pre-charge evidence and apart from CW1 to CW4 already examined in the preliminary evidence, the complainant also examined Sukhvir Singh as CW5 and Gurpreet Singh as CW6 and closed the evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the charge against the accused persons under Sections 494 and 109 IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The accused further exercised their right to cross-examine two witnesses namely Gurdev Singh and Parminder Singh, however, only Gurdev Singh as CW3 appeared in the witness-box for further crossexamination and CW2 Parminder Singh never appeared for further cross-examination despite granting several opportunities. Thereafter, the evidence of the complainant was closed by order of the Court. The accused persons got their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and denied all the incriminating evidence put to them. The accused pleaded innocence and accused No.1 Harpreet Kaur stated that she had solemnized the marriage with accused No.2 on 24.11.2002 after a decree of divorce was passed in her favour annulling the marriage between the complainant and accused No.1. It is also stated that since she had filed the aforesaid FIR No.93 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against the complainant in which he was acquitted, therefore, due to the said reason, the present complaint has been filed. Similar statement was made by accused No.2 Avtar Singh that he solemnized marriage with Harpreet Kaur on 24.11.2002 and at that time, the marriage of accused No.1 Harpreet Kaur was dissolved by way of a decree of divorce granted by the competent Court of law against the complainant Kuldip Singh.