SMT. SHANTI Vs. AMRISH KUMAR JAIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petition seeking leave to appeal under section 378 (4) Cr.PC. was allowed by this court vide order dated Jan. 24, 1990 and the petition was ordered to be registered as appeal. The complainant - appellant (for short the complainant) has filed the instant appeal impugning the judgment dated Sept. 23, 1989 of Judicial Magistrate No.2 Ajmer whereby the accused respondent Amrish Kumar Jain (for short the accused) was acquitted for the charge under section 494 Penal Code and the learned Magistrate also directed to issue notice under section 193 Penal Code to the complainant as well as her witness Satya Prakash Shastri.

(2.) Brief resume of the case is that the complainant instituted a complaint on July 18, 1984 against the accused and two other persons namely. Manju Devi and Inder Chand Jain in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2 Ajmer. After recording the statements under section 200 and 202 Cr.PC., the learned Magistrate took cognisance under section 494 Penal Code The complainant examined herself as PW.1. Harlal Gupta as PW.2, Satya Prakash Shastri as PW.3, Jeneual Pw.4 and Immamudin Khan as PW.5. and thereafter charge under section 494 Penal Code was framed. The accused was allowed to recross the witnesses already examined. All the witnesses were produced by the complainant but PW.4 Jenual Avedin was not produced for re-examination Thereafter the statements of PW.G Smt. Lalita Khana and PW.7 Mustak Ahmed were also recorded. The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC. In the statement the accused stated that she was a bachelor and neither tie entered into first marriage nor he entered into second marriage. The learned trial court after discussing the evidence, acquitted the accused from the charge under section 494 Penal Code and directed that notice under section 193 be issued against the complainant as well as her witnesses.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. Mr Ashok Verma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has drawn my attention towards the judgment dated Jan. 23, 1995 of the Family Coun, Ajmer, whereby the application under section 125 Cr.PC. moved by Amita through complainant Shanti with the allegation that accused Amrish Kumar Jain was his father and she was entitled to be maintained by him. In that proceedings the accused Amrish Kumar Jain was examined. The Family Court Ajmer observed that Shanti Gupta was married to the accused on 6.7.1983 and his statement under section 313 Cr.PC. recorded by the learned Magistrate, the accused clarified that he made a wrong statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The relevant observations of the Family Court in its judgment read as under: