BALHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Balhar Singh was convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib under section 494 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of. six months. His appeal was dismissed by Mr. M. S. Lobana, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his order dated December 15, 1987. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.

(2.) GURDEEP Kaur daughter of Gurdev Singh was married to Balhar Singh nine years back. A daughter named Paramjit Kaur was born out of the wed-lock. Relations between Gurdeep Kaur and Balhar Singh became strained and there was litigation under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Gurdeep Kaur filed a suit in 1982, against Balhar Singh for permanent injunction restraining him from marrying second time as she was apprehending that he was intending to marry. Petitioner made a statement in the court in that suit admitting his marriage with Gurdeep Kaur and stated that he has no intention to marry second time. According to the allegations in complaint Balhar Singh, performed second marriage with Dalwinder Kaur in spite of the fact that he was earlier married. Father of Gurdeep Kaur filed a complaint under section 494 of Indian Penal Code against Balhar Singh, petitioner, his father Mehar Singh, his mother Ajmer Kaur and his second wife Dalwinder Kaur. Shri Hukam Chand, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib convicted all the four vide his order dated 3rd July, 1987. Mr. M.S. Lobana, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in appeal, acquitted Mehar Singh, Ajmer Kaur and Dalwinder Kaur but maintained, conviction of Blahar Singh petitioner under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved,, he has filed this revision.

(3.) MR . G.S. Punia, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised number of points in challenging the conviction of the petitioner. He has submitted that the complaint by Gurdev Singh was not competent as there is nothing to show that Gurdev Singh father of Gurdeep Kaur filed the complaint on behalf of his daughter. This submission is without force. It is obvious that the complaint by Gurdev Singh. is on behalf of Gurdeep Kaur that is why no objection was taken either in the trial Court or in the first appellate Court. The facts. of the case suggest that Gurdev Singh has filed a complaint on behalf of Gurdeep Kaur.