MANMEET KOUR Vs. HARNEET KOUR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Manmeet Kour, alleged second wife of respondent No.2 herein, has filed the present petition under Sec. 561-A Crimial P.C. for quashing of the complaint titled "Harneet Kour vs Joginder Singh and others" as well as the order dated 26.07.2016 by virtue of which the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu) has taken cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sec. 494/109 RPC.

(2.) In the petition, it has been stated that respondent No.1 instituted a criminal complaint against the petitioner and three other accused persons (performa respondents herein) and she had made several allegations against her husband and other relatives in the said complaint. The respondent no.1, apart from making several allegations against her husband and other relatives, had further made several averments in the complaint under reference wherein she has alleged that the petitioner had married to the performa respondent no.2 on 21.06.2015. It is further stated that respondent no.1, in her complaint, had in fact admitted that she had no personal knowledge in respect of the marriage, however, she has stated that one Chandanpal Singh, a resident of Model Town Gangyal, Jammu has allegedly witnessed the marriage on 21.06.2015, which was allegedly solemnized according to Sikh Rites and Customs in Gurudwara at Akhnoor. Therefore, from the perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the respondent no.1 had in fact attributed her knowledge in respect of alleged marriage on the information received from the so called witness namely Chandanpal Singh. That the impugned complaint was filed before the learned CJM, Jammu on 28.05.2016 i.e., almost a year after the alleged marriage was solemnized, however, the complainant had stated in the complaint that she had got knowledge in respect of alleged marriage from one Chandanpal Singh immediately after the same was solemnized on 21.06.2015; that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 26.07.2016 without appreciating the true facts in this regard.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved of the order impugned dated 26.07.2016, has challenged the same in the present petition on the following grounds: