Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kashmir Singh vs . on 28 July, 2015
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2025/2015
Kashmir Singh
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2025/2015
Kashmir Singh
vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Order : 28.07.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr Trilok Joshi, for petitioner
Mr Vikram Rajpurohit- Public Prosecutor
BY THE COURT:
This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No.27/2015, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 Jaswant Singh has been allowed and the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar (for short S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2025/2015 Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
2 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr.Case No.623/2014 has been set aside.The trial court vide order dated 20.12.2014 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 494/109 IPC.
The revisional court after taking into consideration the fact that the complainant has failed to furnish proof of solemnization of second marriage by the respondent No.2 in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to parties, has observed that the trial court has erred in taking cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offence under section 494/109 IPC merely on the basis of admission by him and Manjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner. The revisional court has also taken into consideration the fact that the trial court has erred in placing reliance upon the affidavits of Manjit Kaur and respondent No.2 because the same are photostat and have not been proved by the petitioner. While allowing the revision petition filed by respondent No.2, the revisional court has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2025/2015 Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
3 Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1971 (SC) 1153 and in S.Nagalingam vs. Sivagami, (2001) 7 SCC 487.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the revisional court while arguing that when there is specific admission on the part of the respondent No.2 and Manjit Kaur that they have solmenized marriage, no other proof is required for the purpose of taking cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under section 494/109 IPC. It is also contended that in the statement recorded under sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the witnesses have clearly stated that respondent No.2 has solemnized marriage with Manjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner, without dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and her. It is further contended that even from the statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial court, prima facie offence under section 494/109 IPC is made out against the respondent No.2.
On the strength of the above S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2025/2015 Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
4 arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order passed by the revisional court may be set aside and the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the trial court may be restored.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by the revisional court and has argued that no case is made out for interference in it and the instant criminal misc. petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that in the complaint, the petitioner has not specifically alleged that the respondent No.2 has solemnized marriage with his wife Manjit Kaur in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to the parties. It is also not in dispute that the trial court has placed reliance on photostat of the affidavit of Manjit Kaur and respondent No.2, wherein they have simply admitted that both of them S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2025/2015 Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
5 have married to each other. In those affidavits also, it has not been mentioned that marriage of respondent No.2 and Manjit Kaur has been solemnized in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to the parties. It is also noticed that none of the witnesses before the trial court has stated that Jaswant Singh and Manjit Kaur have solemnized marriage in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to parties.
In such circumstances, when there is no proof, by which it can be established that the respondent No.2 has solemnized marriage with Manjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner in accordance with essential religious rites applicable to the parties, the trial court has erred in taking cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offence under section 494/109 IPC and the revisional court has not committed any illegality in setting aside the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the trial court.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.2025/2015 Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
6 case to interfere in the impugned order passed by the revisional court.
Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-