ASHA Vs. PREM SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated June 9, 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) PREM Shanker - father of Smt. Hemlata alias Anita, filed a complaint under Section 494 I.P.C. against Smt. Asha and twenty -five other persons in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara. It was allege to the Complaint that his daughter Anita was married to Devi Lal as per Hindu rites on May 15, 1981 at Rishabdev and after her marriage, she remained with her husband. Devi Lal turned her out from his house in October, 1983 and thereafter, on April 19, 1981, he has contracted second marriage with Asha in village Kodan tehsil Gaddi. As Devi Lal has contracted second marriage though his first wife is alive and the first marriage is in existence, he has committed an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. The allegation against the other accused is with respect to helping Devi Lal accused for contracting the second marriage. After the submission of this complaint, the learned Magistrate examined Prem Shanker, Shivram, Jaggannath, Madan Lal and Smt. Anita under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter after considering the complaint and the statements recorded by him under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate, by his order dated June 5, 1985, took cognizance against Smt. Asha and Devi Lal under Section 494 I.P.C. Dissatisfied with the order dated June 5, 1985 taking cogizance against her, Smt. Asha filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, who, by his order dated June 9, 1988, dismissed the revision -petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complaint in this case has been filed by the father of Smt. Anita and not by Smt. Anita herself and as such this petition is not maintainable. In support of his case, he has placed reliance over : 86(1984) Punjab Lae Reporter 70. His next argument is that there is no evidence on record, on the basis of which the cognizance could have been taken against the petitioner. He has also, submitted that there is no evidence on record which shows that Smt. Asha had any knowledge with respect to the first marriage of Devi Lal. He, therefore, prayed that the order, taking cognizance against the petitioner may be set -aside and the proceedings initiated against her may be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court taking cognizance against the petitioner.