Delhi District Court
Smt. Manjari Gupta @ Anjali Gupta vs Amit Gupta @ Sonu on 7 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 350/2009
Smt. Manjari Gupta @ Anjali Gupta
W/o Sh. Amit Gupta
R/o H-16, DDA Flats,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-1
Delhi-110 052.
Also at:
D-16/85, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi-110 085
............ Petitioner/ Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Amit Gupta @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Satish Gupta
M/s Bitcom Services Pvt. Ltd.,
366, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Kohat Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi- 110 034,
2. Mrs. Jyoti Rajput @ Jyoti Verma
2nd wife of Sh. Amit Gupta,
D/o Sh. Suryadev Singh
R/o D-113, Dashrathpuri,
Palam Road, New Delhi.
Also at: M/s Bitcom Services Pvt. Ltd.
366, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Kohat Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi- 110 034,
3. Sh. Surya Dev Verma,
R/o D-113, Dashrath Puri,
Palam Road, New Delhi.
4. Smt. Manju Verma,
W/o Sh. Surya Dev Verma
R/o D-113, Sashrath Puri,
Palam Road, New Delhi.
Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 1 of 13
5. Younger brother of Jyoti
S/o Sh. Surya Dev Verma
R/o D-113, Sashrath Puri,
Palam Road, New Delhi.
6. Smt. Sumitra
W/o Sh. Kanwar Singh
R/o D-113, Sashrath Puri,
Palam Road, New Delhi.
7. Sh. Satya Dev Verma
S/o Sh. Kanwar Singh
R/o D-112, Sashrath Puri,
Palam Road, New Delhi.
8. Smt. Anita Verma
W/o Sh. Satya Dev Verma
R/o D-112, Sashrath Puri,
Palam Road, New Delhi.
9. Smt. Nisha Gupta (Divorcee)
D/o late Shashi Kumar Gupta
R/o House No. 16, Prem Nagar
Karnal, Haryana.
10. Mrs. Sushma Gupta
W/o late Shashi Kumar Gupta
R/o House No. 16, Prem Nagar
Karnal, Haryana.
11. Mrs. Kusum Garg
W/o Shri Ram Lakha
R/o House No. , B-2 Block
Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram
Delhi 110 035.
Also at: C/o Z-210, Loha Mandi
Naraina, New Delhi 110 028
Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 2 of 13
12. Sh. Sampat Dandekar
R/o D-16/328, Sector 7
Rohini, Delhi- 110 085
13. Smt. Kavita Dandekar
W/o Sh. Sampat Dandekar
R/o D-16/328, Sector 7
Rohini, Delhi- 110 085
14. Sh. Tarun Chawla @ Nanhe
C/o Uma Boutique
G-22/19, Sector-7
Rohini, Delhi 110 085.
............................... Respondents
ORDER
This revision petition has been preferred against the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 01.09.2009 wherein the Ld. Trial Court after going through the evidence on record did not summon the Respondent No. 2 to 14 by relying upon the judgments in the case of Chander Prakash Nagpal Vs. Hari Singh, 1998 (Vol. 2) RCR, (Crl.) and Jaidev Beniwal Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 RCR (Crl.) 700 on the ground that mere participation in the marriage and acceptance of Shagun in the form of Milini etc., does not amount to abetment of commission of offence under Section 494 Indian Penal Code.
It is pleaded that the Respondent No. 1 namely Amit Gupta was summoned under Section 494 IPC and Respondents No. 2 and 14 were summoned under Section 494 IPC and Section 109 IPC whereas the other accused have been erroneously let-off by the Ld. Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 3 of 13 Magistrate, despite the fact that they have conspired to fabricate the police verification record regarding tenant verification and should have been summoned for offences under Section 420, 463, 471 and 193 IPC.
The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 Amit Gupta, husband of the petitioner Manjari Gupta, who is a married man having a child, despite his first marriage had married to Respondent No. 2 Jyoti Rajput, which marriage has been solemnized in connivance with the other accused, despite the fact that the parents of Respondent No. 2 Jyoti Rajput i.e. Respondent No. 3 Surya Dev Verma and Respondent No. 4 Manju Verma, were fully aware of the first marriage of the Respondent No. 1 Amit Gupta. It is alleged that the said marriage has been arranged by the parents and the brother of the Respondent No. 2 Jyoti Rajput in connivance with her own relatives i.e. Chacha (Respondent No. 5), Chachi (Respondent No. 6), Dadi (Respondent No. 4) and the younger brother (Responder No. 3).
It is further alleged that the mother and sisters of the Respondent No. 1 Amit Gupta i.e. Sushma Gupta (his mother), Nisha Gupta (his sister), Kusum Gupta (his sister) and Sampat Dandekar and his wife Kavita Dandekar (both his close friends), have actively participated in the second marriage. They not only conducted the ceremonies like Kangana and Sar-gudai but did all the shopping for the second marriage. In fact, the allegations against Sampat Dandekar are that he has actively participated in the second marriage by making the video coverage of the marriage ceremony apart from entering into criminal conspiracy of giving false address in the tenant Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 4 of 13 verification from Ex.CW6/B, which document has been primafacie proved by CW6 Madhu Ved Barwah who has deposed that the said document had been prepared by Amit Gupta and Jyoti showing themselves as husband and wife. It is also alleged that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. Amit Gupta and Jyoti Rajput have fabricated the rent agreement dated 09.07.2007, which is Ex.PW6/A in a planned manner and the other accused / respondents before this court, have played an active role in the marriage and therefore the judgment in the case of Chander Prakash Nagpal Vs. Hari Singh, 1998 (Vol. 2) RCR, (Crl.) and Jaidev Beniwal Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 RCR (Crl.) 700, would not apply.
The respondents in their written synopsis / memorandum of arguments have submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable in terms of the provisions of Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, they have relied upon the following judgments:
1. Associated Cement Co. Ld. Vs. Keshavnand, 1998 (1) Crimes 88 (SC).
2. Mahender Singh Vs. High Court of Delhi and Anr., 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 513.
3. Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2010 (1) JCC 433.
4. H. K. L. Bhagat Vs. State, 64 (1996) Delhi Law Times, 316.
5. Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2008 (4) Crimes 260 (SC) Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 5 of 13
6. Ram Swarup Vs. Devi Dayal Bhatiya & Ors. 39 (1986) Delhi Law Times 414.
7. Farida Dar Vs. State 2001 (59) DRJ 94 I have considered the submissions made before me. The grounds raised by the respondents are twofold; firstly, that the revision petition filed by the petitioner would not lie before this court and secondly, that the Respondent No. 3 to 14 by their mere participation in the marriage of Respondent No. 1 and 2 does not make them liable to the offence under Section 494 IPC. The respondents in this regard have placed their reliance upon the following judgments:
1. Ganga Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 1998 (1) Crimes 562 (All)
2. Naatari Parwati Vs. State of Andrha Pradesh & Ors. 2004 (4) Crimes 300 (AP)
3. Santi Deb Berma Vs. Kanchan Prava Devi, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC
616.
4. Laxmi Devi Vs. Satya Narayan and Ors. (1994), Vol. 5 SCC 545
5. H. M. Vs. State, 1990 Cr. L. J., 1001, Karnataka
6. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1965 Supreme Court, 1564.
7. Ram Swarup Vs. Devi Dayal Bhatia & Ors., 30 (1986) Delhi Law Times., 414.Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 6 of 13
At the very outset, in so far as the jurisdiction of this court and the maintainability of the present revision petition is concerned, I may observe that the scope of Sections 401, 204 and 220 Code of Criminal Procedure has been discussed and settled in numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The power of Sessions Judge under Section 399 of the Code are the same as vested in the High Court under Sub-Section (1) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but while exercising this jurisdiction, due care has to be taken that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, it is not open to the higher court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry under Section 202 which culminate into an order under Section 204. (Ref.: AIR 1976 Supreme Court, 1947).
Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, it is now required to ascertain; Firstly, whether the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of witnesses recorded in support of the same taken on the face of it make out any case against the respondents or do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the respondents. Secondly, whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. Lastly, whether the discretion exercised by the Magistrate Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 7 of 13 in issuing the process is capricious and arbitrary.
In the instant case, the Ld. Trial Court directed for issuing the process only against the accused Amit Gupta, Jyoti Rajput (the alleged second wife of the accused Amit Gupta) and Tarun Chawla, who have been summoned for abetment of bigamy whereas all other respondents have not been summoned in view of the judgment in the case of Chander Prakash Nagpal Vs. Hari Singh, 1998 (Vol. 2) RCR, (Crl.) and Jaidev Beniwal Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 RCR (Crl.) 700, wherein it has been duly observed that mere participation in the marriage and acceptance of Shagun in the form of Milini etc., does not amount to abetment of commission of offence under Section 494 Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Now, it is in the light of the aforesaid observations, that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Magistrate is required to be examined. The perusal of the impugned order shows that Ld. Trial Court has after considering the statements of various witnesses produced by the complainant had taken a primafacie view that simply on the basis of the statement made by CW2 Syam Bahadur who had also attended the second marriage of accused Amit Gupa (Respondent No.1), and had deposed before the court that the marriage was also attended to by Respondent No. 3 to 14 and the Respondent Tarun Chawla had brought the Pandit to perform the marriage whereas Sampat Dandekar has made the video coverage of the entire marriage, would not in itself be sufficient to summon all the accused since mere participation in the marriage would not make them culpably liable.
Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 8 of 13I have gone through the testimony of CW1 Anjali Gupta @ Manjari Gupta (petitioner before this court). No doubt the accused persons namely Surya Dev Verma, Manju Verma, the younger brother of Jyoti, Sumitra, Satya Dev Verma, Anita Verma, Nisha Gupta, Sushma Gupta, Kushum Garg, Sampat Dandekar and Kavita Dandekar, had attended the marriage, but now it is to be seen whether they were aware of the first marriage and despite such knowledge abetted the second marriage.
When a spouse contacts a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage he would be guilty of Bigamy. Hindu marriage solemnized under the Act can only be dissolved by the Act and Monogamy is a Rule in the Hindu Marriage Act. Bigamy is out lawed in India except the Muslims and is a wrong punishable under the law. Courts in India look down upon Bigamy which is more Rampant among men. Multiple marriages socially and legally punish women more than men and it is the aggrieved first wife who silently suffers the miseries caused by such a second marriage of the husband.
Bigamy by and large creates complications in the lives of parents as well as children. Most of the time Bigamists go scot-free because the courts can only act on formal complaints, onus of which lies on the wife. Most Bigamy's go unregistered because women fear stigmatization for prosecuting their own husbands and where it is registered there are many legal escape routes. There is a growing trend in the society of using devices supposed to be legal to escape application of provisions of Indian Penal Code like holding Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 9 of 13 incomplete ceremonies, non marital cohabition and change of religion etc. and it is for this reason that in the year 2004 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India directed compulsory registration of all marriages.
It is settled law that mere participation in the second marriage would not ipso-facto make the relatives or the participants liable for abetment to Bigamy since abetment connotes an active suggestion or support to the commission of the crime. However, at the same time those closely associated with the conduct of essential ceremonies of marriage and having actively supported the conduct of the second marriage cannot be let off since that would defeat the very purpose of the provision. Milni and Shagun are not essential ceremonies to the marriage which often precede the main ceremonies. In a case where the close relatives of the husband and the alleged second wife despite having knowledge, participated in the actual essential ceremonies then they are certainly guilty of abetlemtn of the offence of bigamy.
In the present case the parents of the alleged second wife of Amit Gupta @ Sonu i.e. Surya Dev Verma (respondent no.3), Smt. Manju Verma (respondent no.4) and younger brother (respondent no.5) are blood relations of Jyoti Rajput @ Jyoti Verma being parents and real brother residing in the same house, who had actively participated in the second marriage and had performed the essential ceremonies of marriage including Kanyadan. Their case is required to be distinguished from the case of the other respondents. Whether they had the knowledge with regard to the first marriage of respondent no.1 Amit Gupta @ Sonu, is a triable issue which has to Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 10 of 13 be proved or distinguished only during trial. Primafacie on the basis of the testimonies of the witnesses, they are liable to be summoned for abetment to Bigamy.
In so far as the respondent no. 6 Smt. Sumitra the grandmother of Jyoti Rajput @ Jyoti Verma is concerned, she is reported to have expired and therefore, no order is required to be passed in this regard. In so far as Satya Dev Verma (respondent no.7) and Smt. Anita Verma (respondent no.8) who are the uncle and aunt of Jyoti Rajput @ Jyoti Verma are concerned, it is evident from the record that they are residing on a different address. In the absence of any evidence to prove that had actively participated in any essential ceremonies of the marriage of Amit Gupta with Jyoti Rajput, I hereby hold that there is no error in the order of the Ld. Trail Court warranting interfering at this stage.
Now coming to the relatives of respondent no.1 Amit Gupta @ Sonu. It is evident that Sushma Gupta (respondent no.10) is his mother and Smt. Nisha Gupta (respondent no.9) is his married/ Divorcee sister who is also residing in the same house as that of her mother. Further, Ms. Kusum Garg (respondent no.11) is also the married sister of Amit Gupta @ Sonu who is residing separately but being the close blood relative, their case is required to be distinguished from the case of the other respondents. All the above respondents being aware of the subsistence of first marriage of the accused Amit Gupta, had participated in essential ceremonies of the second marriage of the accused Amit Gupta. Keeping in view their close relationship and the evidence on record, it is evident that they Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 11 of 13 were already aware of the subsistence of the first marriage of the respondent Amit Gupta @ Sonu with the revisionist Manjari Gupta from whom Amit Gupta had even born a child. The evidence on record primafacie show that all the above persons were present at the time of marriage with the respondent Jyoti Rajput @ Jyoti Verma and their active participation in the ceremonies of the marriage and abetment in the second marriage is writ large and hence their case is required to be differentiated from the case of other accused/ respondents not so summoned. Primafacie there is sufficient material on record to summon Sushma Gupta, Nisha Gupta and Kusum Garg for the offence of abetment to marriage.
In so far as the respondent no.12 Sampat Dandekar and respondent no.13 Kavita Dandekar are concerned, they are not related to the parties and are reported to be their friends. Therefore, their knowledge with regard to the existence of the first marriage and their active involvement in abeting and arranging and participating in the second marriage is primafacie not borne out from the record and therefore, I find no error in the order of the Ld. Trial Court in refusing to summon Sampat Dandekar and Kavita Dandekar (respondent no. 12 and 13 before this court) as accused.
In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the I find sufficient material on record for summoning the accused/ respondents Surya Dev Verma (respondent no.3), Manju Verma (respondent no.4), younger brother of Jyoti Rajput @ Jyoti Verma (name unknown i.e. respondent no.5); Nisha Gupta (respondent no.9) Sushma Gupta (respondent no.10) and Kusum Garg (respondent Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 12 of 13 no.11) for abetment to Bigamy (under Section 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code). In so far as the respondents namely Satyadev Verma (respondent no.7); Anita Verma (respondent no.8); Sampat Dandekar (respondent no.12) and Kavita Dandekar (respondent no.13) are concerned, I do not find any error in the trial court order dated 1.9.2009 and no modification is called for. Hence, the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 1.9.2009 is partly set aside as herein above.
Revision petition is accordingly disposed off. Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 31.5.2011. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 07.05.2011 ASJ (NW)-II: ROHINI Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 13 of 13 Manjarai Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. CR no. 350/2009 7.5.2011 Present: Sh. B.S. Tomar, Advocate for the Revisionist. None for the respondents.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, the impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 1.9.2009 is partly set aside. Revision petition is accordingly disposed off. Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of the detailed order. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 31.5.2011. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW)/ 7.5.2011 Manjari Gupta Vs. Amit Gupta Etc. CR No. 350/09 Page 14 of 13