Delhi District Court
Chief Prosecutor vs Alok Thakur on 5 October, 2015
State v. Alok Thakur
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI-01
NORTH-WEST : ROHINI : DELHI
CR No. 24/2015
ID No. 02404R0214972015
STATE
Through
Chief Prosecutor, Delhi
.......Revisionist
versus
Alok Thakur
S/o Abhiram Thakur
R/o VPO-Dhararwa,
PS-Parihar,
Distt. Sitamardhi, Bihar
.........Respondent
Date of Institution : 04.08.2014
Date of order : 05.10.2015
CR No. 24/2015 Page 1 of 5
State v. Alok Thakur
Present : Sh. P.K. Samadhiya, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
Sh. Yasvir Singh, Advocate, counsel for the
respondent
O R D E R (ORAL) :-
1. This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated March 11, 2015 passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West District, Delhi whereby the learned Trial Court discharged the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 494 Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).
2. Necessary facts in brief leading to filing the present criminal revision are that chargesheet was filed against the respondent and others for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406/494/34 IPC. Vide impugned order, learned Trial Court discharged the present respondent for the offence punishable under Section 406/494/34 IPC. Since, the State felt aggrieved qua the discharge of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, State preferred to file the present criminal revision. However, it is pertinent to state that no revision has been filed qua the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that learned Trial Court had committed an error while discharging the CR No. 24/2015 Page 2 of 5 State v. Alok Thakur respondent for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC as there are sufficient evidence on record to show prima-facie that respondent had solemnised remarriage during the life time of his wife i.e. complainant Kavita Thakur. It is further argued that since respondent had solemnised remarriage during the life time of his wife, prima-facie case is made out against him for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the said contentions by arguing sagaciously that there is no iota of evidence on record that respondent had solemnised remarriage. It is submitted that all the witnesses merely stated that they came to know that respondent had solemnised remarriage but none of the witnesses testified that either he had participated in the said marriage or he had personal knowledge about the same. Even during investigation, investigating officer did not deem it appropriate to record the statement of Pandit Chhena Jha, who allegedly performed the alleged marriage.
5. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
6. To make out a prima-facie case under Section 494 IPC, prosecution has to show prima-facie that respondent had solemnised remarriage during the life time of his previous wife i.e. complainant and such marriage was void.
CR No. 24/2015 Page 3 of 57. In order to support his contention, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the complaint wherein complainant alleged that she was informed that respondent had solemnised remarriage with another girl named Kavita D/o Leela Jha and the said marriage was got performed by Chhena Jha Pujari. But admittedly, investigating officer even did not deem it appropriate to examine the said Pujari to verify whether he had got performed any such marriage or not. Indisputably, the said marriage was not attended by the complainant and allegations levelled her are based on the information furnished to her. Thus, the allegations levelled in the complaint may be sufficient to conduct investigation, yet not sufficient to make out a prima-facie case under Section 494 IPC.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the statement of Vinod Kumar Jha, Abdul Qayum, Vinod Nayak and Sudhir Kumar. I have perused their statements carefully. Bare perusal of their statements revealed that they only disclosed to the police that they came to know about the fact that accused had solemnised marriage, but no attempt was made by the investigating officer to know from whom they came to know about the said fact. There is nothing in their statement, which may show that they had attended the marriage. Surprisingly, no effort was made by the investigating agency to interrogate any person, who participated in the said marriage. Even no attempt was made to examine Chhena Jha Pujari, who allegedly performed the rites of the said marriage.
9. In the light of the above said evidence, if learned Trial CR No. 24/2015 Page 4 of 5 State v. Alok Thakur Court arrived at a conclusion that there is no sufficient material on record to make out a prima-facie case against the respondent for the offece punishable under Section 494 IPC, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present criminal revision, thus I hereby dismiss the same.
11. Copy of order be sent to the learned Trial Court.
12. Criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 05th day of October, 2015 (Pawan Kumar Jain) Spl. Judge CBI-01, North-West Rohini Courts, Delhi/sm CR No. 24/2015 Page 5 of 5