SEEMA RANI Vs. GURPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is for quashing of the complaint dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) and for quashing/setting aside the summoning order dated 26.9.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Sections 406, 498-A and 494 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the basic ingredients of the provisions for which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial by the trial Court, do not find mention in the complaint against her.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the complaint or in the statement made by the complainant before the trial Court which would constitute any of the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC as everywhere it is mentioned that the said acts were committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint. The petitioner is accused No. 4 in the complaint. His further contention is that the allegation, if any, against the petitioner is that the petitioner and accused No. 1, namely, Gurpreet Singh, had contracted a second marriage and, therefore, the petitioner committed an offence of bigamy which would be an offence under Section 494 IPC and, therefore, she should be summoned, tried and thereafter punished. The basic ingredients with regard to the second marriage having taken place between Gurpreet Singh-accused No. 1 and petitioner-accused No. 4 has neither been pleaded in the complaint nor in the statement made by the complainant before the trial Court. He contends that in the complaint, neither the date of the marriage, the manner nor the law under which it was performed, have been mentioned. It has even not been mentioned as to who were the persons present at the time of solemnization of such marriage. The ceremonies essential for a marriage to be in existence, have not been even referred to in the complaint or in the statement made by the complainant before the trial Court. He, therefore, on this basis, prays for quashing of the complaint dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 26.9.2008 (Annexure P-2).

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the complaint Annexure P-1 as well as the statement of Gurpreet Kaur-complainant before the trial Court, which is attached as Annexure P-3, clearly shows that there is no allegation against the petitioner as regards offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Therefore, the summoning order under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC qua the petitioner is clearly not sustainable. As far as the commission of offence under Section 494 IPC by the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the complaint would show that except for the bald statement made in para 10 thereof that the marriage was secretly performed by accused No. 1 and petitioner-accused No. 4, there is no mention of the date of the marriage; as to who were the persons who attended the marriage; and when, where and by whom the ceremony of marriage was performed. The only improvement which has been made by the complainant in her statement before the trial Court is that she has mentioned the year of marriage as 2005. Bereft of the basic ingredients, which would prove the marriage, the offence under Section 494 IPC with regard to bigamy cannot be said to have been committed. The basic ingredients of bigamy to fall under Section 494 IPC are :-