DEVENDRA SINGH . Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.01 2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No.445/2000, by which the trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 494/109, IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for decision of the instant criminal petition, are that on 02.02.1999, complainant-respondent No.2 Baljeet Kaur filed a criminal complaint before the trial Court, inter alia, stating therein that her marriage took place with petitioner No. 1 Devendra Singh on 31.01.1999 and out of this wed-lock, she gave birth to three children from the loin of petitioner No.1 Devendra Singh. It was alleged that soon after the marriage, there was perpetual demand of dowry by the members of her in-laws and ultimately she was turned out from her in-laws house two years prior to the date of filing the complaint, whereupon a panchayat was convened but her husband and in-laws did not agree to keep her, whereupon she filed a case under sections 498A, 406, 420, 323, 384, 506, 363 and 120B, IPC. It was further alleged that when the complainant came to know that petitioner No. 1 is going to contact second marriage with petitioner No.4 Kalwant Kaur, they went to the village where the marriage was to be solemnized on 10.06.1998 but their efforts could yield nothing and the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 was solemnized on 10.06.1998 during the subsistence of marriage between petitioner No. 1 and the complainant-respondent No.2. The trial Court, after recording the statement of the complainant-respondent No.2. The trial Court, after recording the statement of the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner and vide impugned order dated 23.01.2004 framed the charges against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor as also the Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2. I have carefully perused the impugned order and the record of the case.