Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyapal Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 25 January, 2017
1
MCRC.3639/2016
Satyapal Singh
v.
State of M.P & anr.
25/01/2017
Shri Ajeet Singh Bhadoria, counsel for the applicant.
Shr Girdhari Singh Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent no.1/State.
None for the respondent no.2 though served. This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the further proceedings in Complaint Case No.53/2011 pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhind for offences punishable under Sections 494, 120-B/34 of IPC.
The necessary facts for the disposal of this application are that the respondent no.2 has filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and other co-accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 494, 120-B, and 34 of IPC. It was her case that she was married to the co-accused Udadyveer Singh in the year 1999. During the subsistence of her marriage, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons have got the co-accused Udayveer Singh remarried on 30/06/2009 with Anita, D/o Harvilas Singh. It was alleged that all the accused persons, having knowing-fully well that the first marriage of Udayveer Singh is still subsisting and the marital ties have not been broken, had got him remarried and, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 494, 120-B/34 of IPC.
The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 of CrPC. In the said statement, she had stated that Udayveer Singh is her husband with whom she was married about ten years back. Udayveer has remarried with one Anita during the subsistence of her marriage. A decree of divorce has not been passed. Anita is the resident of Village- Karhal. Harvilas is the father of Anita. At the time of the 2 MCRC.3639/2016 second marriage, as the complainant was residing with her parents, therefore, she could not get any information about the second marriage. She was told about the second marriage by the villagers. It was further submitted that she has also seen Udayveer Singh alongwith Anita as husband and wife and about eight days back, a baby has also born. It was further stated that prior to the second marriage, the co- accused Dilip, Badan and Udayveer, after beating the complainant, turned her out of her matrimonial house. They were demanding Rs.1 Lakh and a motorcycle. The demand was made near about two years after the marriage. She was turned out of her matrimonial house one month prior to the date of second marriage. It was specifically stated that Dilip and Badan, who are the brother and father of Udayveer Singh, have got Udayveer remarried. It was further stated in the statement that Harvilas is the father of Anita and Satyapal is the brother of Anita.
Thus, it is clear from the statement of the complainant that the present applicant has been arrayed as an accused only because he happens to be the brother of Anita. There is no allegation in the statement of the complainant that the applicant had played any active role in getting the husband of the complainant remarried with Anita.
Ramnaresh(PW/2) has stated that he had attended the marriage of Udayveer with Anita. However, he has not stated anything against the present applicant.
Ravindra(PW/3) has also stated that he had attended the marriage of Udayveer with Anita and he had also informed Harvilas about the fact that Udayveer is having living spouse but nothing has been stated against the present applicant.
Ramavatar(PW/4) has also stated about the remarriage of Udayveer. However, except by saying that the present 3 MCRC.3639/2016 applicant is the brother of Anita, no other allegations have been made.
Thus, from the plain reading of the complaint as well as the statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the present applicant has been made an accused merely on the ground that he is brother of Anita. There is nothing on record to show that he had any role to play in the remarriage of Udayveer with Anita.
It is also not out of place to mention here that the complainant, during the pendency of the complaint, had entered into compromise with all other accused persons and the application under Section 320(2) of CrPC was filed. As the said application was allowed and all the accused persons were acquitted in the light of provisions of Section 320, however, as the applicant was not appearing before the Trial Court, therefore, the application for compounding the offence could not be filed for applicant.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is clear that from the entire allegations made in the complaint alongwith statements of the witnesses, recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, it is clear that no overt act has been mentioned against the applicant.
On the contrary, in the statement of the complainant, it is specifically mentioned that in fact it is Dilip and Badan who got Udayveer remarried.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no prima facie material available on record to issue process against the present applicant. The Trial Magistrate, by issuing process against the applicant, has committed mistake. Even otherwise, from order dated 31/12/2010, it is clear that merely by mentioning that there appears to be prima facie evidence available on record 4 MCRC.3639/2016 to issue process against the accused persons, no reasons, though briefly, have been assigned by the Magistrate to show application of mind to the facts and the allegations made against the applicant.
Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
The proceedings pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhind in Criminal Case No.53/2011 are hereby quashed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
AKS Judge