GEETA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 7.2.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi arising out of Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 711 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 3799 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected and the petitioners were directed to stand charge along with the principal accused Shashi Shekhar Pathak for the offence under Sections 311/420/493/496/506/34, IPC.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case as it stands narrated was that the O.P. No. 2 Usha Pathak presented a Complaint Case No. 102 of 2004 before the C.J.M. Ranchi alleging inter alia, that she was fraudulently taken to Deori Mandir on 10.12.2000 by the principal accused Shashi Shekhar Pathak (not amongst the petitioners) where they got married and she was forced to believe that she was his legally wedded wife. After the marriage they began to live together and consummated, as a result of which she became pregnant in the month of May, 2003. The complainant O.P. No. 2 clarified that prior to such event of her pregnancy all the petitioners accepted her as the legally married wife of Shashi Shekhar Pathak. It was alleged therein that having come to know that she had conceived, the petitioners started neglecting her and they denied even her marital relationship with the principal accused and that she was not allowed to live with the petitioners in the house of her husband on the pretext of paucity of accommodation. Finding apathy of the principal accused she initiated a proceeding vide Maintenance Case No. 80 of 2003 under Section 125, CrPC before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi but after persistent persuation and demonstration that he was faithful to the complainant got the proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC withdrawn and further persuaded to get her pregnancy terminated. Finally, it was alleged that the petitioners who were none other than the mother, brother, sister and the brother -in -law of the principal accused Shashi Shekhar Pathak acted as abettors for all the atrocities, mental and physical extended by the principal accused. After institution of the complaint it was sent to the Kotwali Police Station under Section 156 (3), CrPC and pursuant to that the police instituted the case and after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the petitioners and the principal accused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the complainant -O.P. No. 2 was already a married woman having children from her husband Awadhesh Kumar Gupta and she was leading a deserted life without obtaining a decree of divorce for the last 8 years, therefore, in the circumstances she was not a competent woman to perform second marriage with anyone and she could not be a legally wedded wife of the principal accused. There was no documentary evidence on the record before the learned S.D.J.M. that her pregnancy was at any point of time terminated by the accused No. 1. As a matter of fact, on the alleged date of void marriage on 4.12.2000 one of the near relations of the petitioners had died and they had visited the last rites of Sita Devi to which Xerox copy of the death certificate of Sita Devi has been annexed.