NANGI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Nangi, Panchu Ram and Bhoor Singh have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the taking of cognisance by the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad in Criminal Case No. 259 of 1986 initiated on a private complaint filed by Basanti Devi in that court on Dec. 10 1984.

(2.) It was a complaint of Basanti Devi that Bhoor Singh petitioner No. 3 was already married with the petitioner. The marriage had been performed between Basanti Devi and Bhoor Singh at Nasirabad on March 29. 1977 after performing the customary religious ceremonies of Satpadi, and out of this wedlock a daughter was also born who was five years old at the time of making of the complaint. However, on July 17, 1978 Bhoor Singh turned out Basanti Devi from his house. Subsequently on Nov. 4, 1984, Bhoor Singh solemnised a second marriage with Smt. Chandra Kala according to Hindu customary rites. It was also alleged that Panchu Ram and Smt. Nangi who are parents of Bhoor Singh and Smt. Bhoori who is mother of Chandra Kala entered in conspiracy and in pursuance of that whilst Smt. Basanti Devi, the first wife lawfully married to Bhoor Singh was living, married a second wife Smt. Chandra Kala which was void and, therefore, Bhoor Singh committed an offence under section 494 I.P.C. while Panchu Ram, Smt. Nangi and Smt. Bhoori and also Smt. Chandra Kala committed the offence of criminal conspiracy. After the filing of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad recorded the statements of Basanti P.W. 1 and Ram Lal P.W.2 and after perusal of the statements he took cognisance of the offence under section 494 I.P.C., against Bhoor Singh and for the offence under section 494 read with section 120B I.P.C. against the remaining persons who were impleaded as accused persons in the complaint. Against this order of the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabed dated Sept. 2, 1985, the present petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1983 (130 of 1985) before the Court of Sessions but this revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer, on May 8. 1986 Having been unsuccessful in revision before the court of Sessions, the petitioners have moved this Court under section 482 Cr. P C. praying that this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabed taking cognisance against them and also the order of the Additional Sessions Judge Ajmer who affirmed the said order. '

(3.) I have heard Shri S.R. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta appearing for non-petitioner Smt., Basanti Devi and also Shri S.C. Sharma the public Prosecutor