SHOBHA & OTHERS Vs. RAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) are as under :-

(2.) On 6.5.1989, respondent-Raji (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant) had filed a complaint against Haribux son of Harchand, Harchand son of Chhoga, Smt. Sugani wife of Harchand, Smt. Shobha daughter of Kana Jat, Kana son of Ridhkaran, Smt. Gilol wife of Kana, Om Prakash son of Ghanshyam, Ram Narain son of Bhoora Nai and Kana son of Ladu Jat, who were impleaded as the respondents No. 1 to 9 respectively. In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant was the lawfully wedded wife of Haribux (not a party in this petition), having married him on 14.5.1975 in village Seel Tehsil-Kishangarh and after the marriage she live with her husband in village Balapura and served him and performed all matrimonial obligations, it was alleged that Haribux was financially well of and was of modern thinking, whereas, the complainant was an ordinary young lady and was not beautiful according to Haribux and, as such, he had made arrangement to perform marriage with Smt. Shobha (the petitioner No. 1 herein and respondent No. 4 in the complaint) and, on learning that the marriage was to be performed on 9.5.1989, the complainant had filed a suit on 6.5.1989 for restraining her husband and petitioner No. 1 from marrying each other and petitioner No. l's father Kana (petitioner No. 2) from performing the marriage between Shobha and Haribux. It was stated that an injunction order was issued restraining the said respondents from doing so. It was also alleged that the father and mother of Haribux had also abetted the performance of the marriage between Shobha and Haribux and, similarly, Shobha's father Kana and her mother GUol besides Kana, maternal uncle of Haribux had also abetted the performance of the marriage between Haribux and Shobha on 9.5.1989 in spite of the injunction order. It was thus stated that all the abosesaid 9 persons had committed offence punishable under section 494 read with section 109 IPC and it was prayed that they be punished in accordance with law. The learned trial court recorded the statements of the complainant and her father Ratanlal. The complainant also produced on record the certified copy of the injunction order dated 8.9.1989 passed by the learned Munsif. She also produced on record a copy of the ration-card showing the complainant as the wife of Haribux. The learned trial court, after recording the abovesaid evidence, found prima facie case against all the respondents of the complaint except respondents No. 7 and 8, Om Prakash son of Ghanshyam and Ramkaran son of Bhoora Nai and also summoned the respondents except respondents No. 7 and 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners Shobha, her father Kana, her mother Gilol and Kana, maternal uncle of Haribux have approached this court by filing this petition under section 482 of the Code, by impleading the complainant as the only respondent-non-petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.