SUKH DEV Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 561 -A Cr. P. C. seeks the quashing of the proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and respondent Nos 2 to 9 through a complaint filed under Section 494/109 R.P.C. pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua. The court took cognizance of the case and issued process against the petitioner. Before the trial court the petitioner filed an application stating that on the averments made in the complaint itself, the said court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the case. The trial court, however, vide order impugned in this petition dismissed that application stating that the point of jurisdiction could be raised after the parties lead evidence. It is this order and the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which have been called in question in this petition.

(2.) RESPONDENTS were summoned. Whereas respondent No. 1 appeared before the Deputy Registrar on certain dates, she absented herself thereafter and vide order of the court dated 18 -2 -1982, she was set exparte. She is not present even today. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 appeared through Shri C.S. Gupta and they support the case of the petitioner. Mr. Sethi learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record two documents; (1) purporting to be an application of respondent No. 1 dated 16 -3 -1981, stating that she does not wish to prosecute the complaint under Section 494 R.P.C. any further and (2) a photo stat copy of the deed of divorce executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. May be, it is for this reason that respondent No. 1 has chosen to remain absent.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 for an offence under Section 414/109 R.P.C. In the complaint, however, no allegation has been made to the effect that the petitioner was abetted at Kathua by any one lo commit the offence of bigamy. All that has been stated in that behalf is that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and the petitioner had conspired together and the said conspiracy resulted in the petitioners marrying again during the life time of the respondent while his marriage with respondent No. 1 was still subsisting. In Para No. 3 of the complaint, it has been specifically stated that the second marriage was solemnized on 14 -8 -1978 at Arya Samaj, Jammu.