SUKAN RAJ Vs. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and closely perused the judgments being Kanwal Ram & Ors. Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Administration reported in AIR 1966 S.C. 614 and Madanlal & Ors. Vs. Shashibala reported in 1981 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 292 .

(2.) There is no dispute about the legal preposition propounded in both the above cases. However, in the case of Kanwal Ram (supra) the Court was considering the question at the final stage as to whether conviction can be recorded or not.

(3.) So far as the case of Madanlal (supra) is concerned that of course was a case under Sec. 482 Cr.RC. From that stand point I have perused the record and looked into the statement of the witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate u/s. 200 and in the enquiry u/s. 202 Cr.RC. and find that Motilal has clearly deposed ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... It also appears from the cause title of the complaint that the parties are 'Meghwal' by community. In this background Moti has further deposed that the petitioner Sukan Raj has contacted 'Nata'. Thus for the present purposes it appears that in the community of the parties 'Nata' is prevalent as a customary form of marriage. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate was in error in coming to the conclusion that prima facie, offence u/s. 494 is made out against the petitioner Sukan Raj and the one u/s. 494/109 Penal Code is made out against Durga. In this view of the petitioner I find no force in the petition.