Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Buddha Mal vs Meena And Anr. on 6 August, 1992
Equivalent citations: I(1993)DMC231
JUDGMENT N.L. Tibrewal, J.
1. This application for grant of leave to appeal is filed against the order of acquittal dated March 2, 1990 of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The case was instituted on a complaint filed by the petitioner on 20-4-84. The laid complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Manak Chowk, where a criminal case was registered. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and submitted a negative report on 7-4-84 that no offence was made out against the accused person.
The Magistrate, thereafter, recorded the statement of the complainantandthe witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the accused-non-petitioner Ram Swaroop under Section 497 IPC and under Section 380 IPC against the non-petitioner Smt.Meera.
2. Thereafter, the accused person appeared in the court to face the trial. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the defence witnesses, the trial court acquitted both the accused persons from the charges levelled against them.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, so far Ram Swaroop is concerned, offence is made out against him under Section 497 IPC. The learned trial court acquitted the accused Ram Swaroop on the ground that before the marriage of complainant Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera, she was married to Suwa Lal and that marriage was subsisting, inasmuch as, there was no material on the record to prove that the said earlier marriage was desolved prior to the marriage of Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera. The learned trial Megistrate, therfore, was of the view that the marriage of Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera itself was void and she was not a legally married wife of Buddha Mal, the accused Ram Swaroop could not be convicted under Section 497 IPC on the complaint filed by him.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of the complainant Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera is proved as 'Nata' marriage, is a valid marriage according to the customs prevailed amongst Tellies. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Gopal Lal v. Stale of Rajasthan (1979 Cr. L.R. (SC) 255).
5. Here, the dispute is not, whether Buddha Mat could have contracted a 'Nata' marriage in accordance with the customs prevailing in the community of Tellies, but the dispute is that the alleged marriage of Buddha Mal with Smt. Meera, if contracted, was contracted when the earlier marriage of Smt. Meera with Suwa Lal was subsisting. Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it clear that, any marriage between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or wife living. Hence, the second marriage of Smt. Meera with Buddha Mal was void as the earlier marriage of Smt. Meera with Suwa Lal was subsisting. Therefore, the complainant Buddha Mal could not be said to be the legally married husband of Smt. Meera no as to file a complaint against Ram Swaroop for the offence under Section 497 IPC.
6. Consequently, the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate cannot be laid to be erroneous in law, and there is no substance in this application for grant of leave to appeal. This application is hereby rejected.