SUMER CHAND Vs. KAUSHAIAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition wherein, he has prayed for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-l) under Section 494 I.P.C filed by respondent No. 1 against him and respondent No.2, as well as for quashing the order Annexure P-7 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour dated 30.1.1997 in Criminal Revision Petition No.7-N/10 of 1996 and as also Annexuio P-5 summoning oruer passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No. 1), Paonta Sahib in case No. 125/2 of 1996 dated 23.4.1996, titled as Kaushalya Devi vs. Sumer chand and Ore.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are That the petitioner is the husband of respondent no. l. who has filed complaint under Section 494 I.P.C against the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 on the allegations that her marriage with the petitioner took place in accordance with Hindu customs and Hindu law and they have two daughters from this wed-lock, petitioner is employed in Education department as teacher. Further case of respondent No.1 in her statement recorded in preliminary evidence on 11.4.1996 was that petitioner has married for the second time respondent No.2 Nirjala and thereafter lie is causing harassment to her as well as their two daughters. Respondent No. 1 had produced on record extract from marriage register of Panchayat (Ex.P-1) and extract from the family register of Panchayat relating to Sumer Chand petitioner (Ex.P.-2). Another witness examined as PW-2 is Madan Singh, her brother, who had supported the case of respondent No.1.

(3.) Trial court after consideration of preliminary evidence recorded before it, by means of order dated 23.4.1996 (Annexure P-5) was satisfied that there is prim a facie case regarding the petitioner having solemnized second marriage with Nirjala Devi, respondent No.2 despite the fact that respondent No. 1 was his first living legally wedded wife and thus, according to the trial court, there was sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 for offence under Section 4941. P.C. Resultantly, petitioner and respondent No 2 were ordered to be summoned by means of bailable warrants. Record further show s that against the summoning order, petitioner preferred revision petition which came up for consideration before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmor District at Nahan, who by means of order dated 30.1.1997 has dismissed the same holding that the order passed by the trial court (Annexure P -5) does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety calling for interference in the proceedings before the said court and thus the revision petition was dismissed vide order contained in Ex.P.7. Complaint filed by respondent No. l against the petitioner and respondent No. l against the petitioner and respondent No.2 before the trial Court under Section 494 I.P.C. is Annexure. 1.