LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-71

MAMTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 05, 2016
MAMTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Petitioners, facing trial for offence under Section 494/109 IPC, have laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 20th of May 2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned revisional Court'), whereby their revision is rejected. By the order impugned, learned revisional Court has upheld order dated 21st of March 2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) The facts apposite for purpose of this petition are that second respondent complainant laid a criminal complaint against her husband Ghanshyam Lal and all the petitioners with a specific allegation that Ghanshyam Lal has contacted second marriage during subsistence of a valid marriage with her. It is further averred in the complaint that all the petitioners participated in the said marriage ceremony inspite of the fact that they had knowledge about subsistence of a valid marriage between her and Ghanshyam Lal. As such, the complaint attributed offence under Section 494/109 IPC against all the petitioners.

(3.) At the threshold, the complaint was filed in the year 1996 and case is still pending consideration before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, after taking cognizance for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners, proceeded to frame charge by order dated 21st of March 2016. At the time of framing charge, on behalf of petitioners, objections were raised about jurisdiction of the learned trial Court on the anvil of sub-sec. (2) of Section 182 Cr.P.C. besides the objection that at pre-charge stage evidence tendered by the complainant is lacking requisite sting to frame aforesaid charge against them. The pleas sought to be raised on behalf of petitioners including the main accused did not find favour of the learned trial Court and consequently while rejecting all these contentions, the learned trial Court proceeded to frame charge against all the accused persons including the petitioners.