Delhi District Court
Ms. Neetu Singh vs State Of Delhi on 4 August, 2016
Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 57420/16
Ms. Neetu Singh
D/o Late Sh. K.D Singh
R/o 2691, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi110009.
.....Petitioner/Revisionist
Versus
1. State of Delhi
(Through P.P)
2. Rajeev Saumitra
S/o Sh. R.S.P. Sinha,
H.No. 1198, 3rd Floor,
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi.110009.
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.02.2016 Date on which Order was reserved: 23.07.2016 Date on which Order pronounced : 04.08.2016 O R D E R
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.10.2015 (hereinafter called the impugned order) passed by ACMM (North) Rohini Court, Delhi whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an accused for the offences punishable U/s 494/495 IPC.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, respondent no. 2 namely Rajeev Saumitra (herein after called the complainant for the sake of convenience) Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 1 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 filed complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC against four respondents including petitioner herein (herein after called the accused for the sake of convenience) alleging commission of offences punishable U/s 494/495/420/468/471/506/120B IPC on the allegations that in the month of July 2005, she came into contract with him and requested to allow her to teach English subject in the Coaching Institute being run by him in the area of Mukherjee Nagar and which request was allowed by him. She claimed herself to be spinster and unmarried and trapped him into her net and made him to fraudulently enter into marriage with her on 12.03.2006 as per Hindu Rites & Ceremonies in a temple in Delhi. The marriage between the parties was duly consummated and one male child was born out of said wedlock on 18.11.2008. The relationship between the parties became sore. She tried to get the marriage dissolved by filing Petition U/s 13B (1) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by Mutual Consent, wherein she claimed her marital status as spinster before her marriage with him. In November 2014, he came to know that petitioner was already married with Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan before marrying with him and said fact was deliberately concealed by her. Despite repeated requests for disclosing particulars of her previous marriage, she did not do so. Ultimately, on 31.01.2015, he came across photocopy of Certificate issued by Matrimonial Court in personal file of accused, whereafter he applied for certified copy and other relevant documents and came to know about the entire truth with regard to her previous marriage with Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan on 21.05.1998.
During pre summoning evidence, the complainant examined only himself as CW1. He exhibited Marriage Card in respect of marriage between him and the accused as Ex. CW1/A, copies of Affidavits sworn by Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 2 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 him and accused in First Motion Petition as Ex. CW1/B and CW1/C, certified copy of said petition as CW1/D, copy of Marriage Certificate in respect of previous marriage of accused with Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan held on 21.05.1998 as Ex. CW1/E and certified copy of statement and order dated 09.10.2000 and photographs of previous marriage of accused as Ex. CW1/F (colly.).
After hearing the submissions raised on behalf of complainant and the material before it, trial Court had been pleased to summon the accused for the offences punishable U/s 494/495 IPC vide impugned order which is under challenge before this Court.
The impugned order has been assailed by petitioner/accused mainly on the grounds that same is based upon nonapplication of mind as trial Court failed to consider the fact that complainant did not set out necessary facts i.e. performance of saptpadi before sacred fire during solemnization of his marriage with her; he also failed to prove the solemnization of any marriage between him and the accused as per Hindu Rites & Rituals and also that there was any valid marriage between accused and Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan prior to solemnization of any marriage between them.
After referring to the relevant documents filed by complainant before trial Court and the statement of complainant as CW1 examined during pre summoning evidence, Ld Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner/accused vehemently argued that in order to attract the offences punishable U/s 494/495 IPC, it is essential to establish that valid marriage took place between complainant and accused and necessary requirement as stipulated in Hindu Marriage Act i.e. performance of saptpadi before sacred fire was fulfilled. Ld. Senior counsel submitted that there is no averment Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 3 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 that any saptpadi was performed before sacred fire at the time of solemnization of alleged marriage between accused and complainant at any point of time. She further argued that complaint U/s 200 Cr.PC is totally silent about the date when complainant came to know about the assertion that accused was already married with Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan. She further argued that complainant has not been able to prove that there was any valid marriage between accused and Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan. For the said purpose, she submitted that complainant neither examined Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan during pre summoning evidence nor produced any cogent evidence to show that the essential requirement i.e. performing saptpadi before sacred fire, took place at the time of her marriage with Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan. She also contended that even priest of the temple where alleged marriage between the parties was solemnized, has also not been examined during pre summoning evidence. She also referred to one printout available at page 58 of the Paper Book, in support of her contention that accused had disclosed her status as Awaiting Divorce at Jeevan Saathi.Com and thus, complainant was well within the knowledge of the factum of previous marriage between accused and Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan right from the beginning and even prior to the alleged marriage between the parties. She therefore, claimed that necessary ingredients of Section 494/495 IPC are not satisfied in this case. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and same is liable to be set aside. She also contended that petitioner was not supposed to get her marriage with Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan declared as null & void since the legal position is that there is no need to seek declaration regarding a marriage which is null & void in the eyes of law. In support of her respectful submissions, Ld. Senior counsel also placed reliance upon the following Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 4 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 authorities: (1) M.M Malhotra Vs. Union of India & Ors (2005) 8 SCC 351; (2) Smt. Padi & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Kharia Ram, AIR 1963, HP High Court 16;
(3) Unreported decision in the case of Kishor Rambhau Mandlik & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr in Criminal Writ Petition No. 564/2014 decided on 19.12.2014 by Bombay High Court; (4) Subir Kumar Kundu @ Sambhu Vs. State of West Bengal, 1992 Cri LJ 1502;
(5) Smt. Baby Kar Roy vs. Ram Rati Devi & Anr. 1975 Cri. LJ 836 (CAN) and (6) Chandra Bahadur Subba Vs. State & Anr. Reported at 1978, Cri LJ
942. Ld. Additional PP appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1/State, supported the impugned order by submitting that same is based upon correct appreciation of the facts and the material available before trial Court and the accused has been rightly summoned for the said offences.
Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.
2/complainant also supported the impugned order and submitted that only summoning order has been passed against accused. Thus, the arguments advanced on her behalf are not sustainable at this stage. He argued that only limited scope of interference has been provided in Section 397 (1) Cr.PC, when the order passed by trial Court suffers from any illegality, infirmity or impropriety. He also submitted that the judgments relied on behalf of petitioner are not applicable at this stage as all those judgments were delivered at the final stage. He further argued that all the relevant Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 5 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 documents have been placed before trial Court showing that there was a valid marriage between accused and complainant. For the said purpose, he also submitted that one male child is born out of wedlock between the parties. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of accused to take the plea that her marriage with complainant was not validly performed. He further argued that the document appearing at page 58 of the Paper Book which is claimed to be the profile of accused uploaded at Jeevansathi.Com, never came to the notice of complainant and said document is required to be proved by her during trial. He further submitted that even otherwise the accused has shown her status to be 'Awaiting Divorce' in the said document. Thus, she is precluded from raising the plea that her previous marriage with Captain Bachan Singh Chauhan was not valid marriage. He also pointed out that the photographs of the marriage between the parties have also been placed on record of trial Court. He also relied upon Section 92 of Evidence Act in support of his contention that oral facts which are in contradiction to the contents of document, are not admissible under the law. He therefore, urged that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shivalik Gosh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P & Anr. passed in Criminal Revision No. 1169/2011 decided on 19.05.2011.
I have already heard Ms. Geeta Luthra Ld Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioner/accused, Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional PP on behalf of respondent no. 1/State and Sh. Murari Tiwari Adv on behalf of respondent no. 2/complainant. I have also gone through the material available on record and the authorities cited at the Bar.
Before dealing with the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the sides, it may be noted that scope of interference available to the Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 6 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 Appellate Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is limited on the grounds when the order under challenge suffers from any illegality or infirmity or impropriety. It is no no more resintgra that no fishing or roving enquiry is to be made at the stage of summoning of an accused and only primafacie view is to be taken by the Court at that stage in order to make up the mind on the basis of material available before it as to whether there exits sufficient grounds to proceed against such accused or not.
In the present case, the complainant categorically alleged that the accused introduced herself as spinster and unmarried at the time of entering into marriage with him. She disclosed her marital status as spinster in affidavit (Ex. CW1/B) sworn by her at the time of solemnization of her marriage with the complainant. Not only this, her marital status is shown to be 'Unmarried' in the Marriage Certificate dated 12.03.2006 ( Ex. CW1/A) duly signed by he at point B and issued by Sanatan Dharam Mandir with regard to solemnization of her marriage with the complainant. Similarly, the accused is shown to have specifically disclosed her marital status as Hindu Spinster before her marriage with complainant, in Petition U/s 13 (B) (i) of Hindu Marriage Act ( Ex. CW1/1) seeking decree of divorce by way of Mutual Consent filed before Family Court in order to get her marriage with complainant dissolved. Not only this, the said petition was also supported by her own affidavit. The complainant also placed on trial Court record the certified copy of relevant entry appearing in Hindu Marriage Register maintained in the office of Registrar of Marriages. The said entry is Ex. CW1/E. The said entry recites that the accused got her marriage with Bachan Singh Chauhan S/o Sh. Vasudev Narain Chauhan, registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages on 08.06.1998. The complainant also placed on record the certified copy of joint statement ( Ex. CW1/F) Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 7 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 purportedly made by accused and B.S. Chauhan on oath before the matrimonial Court on 09.10.2010 with regard to withdrawal of Petition U/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from the said Court on 09.10.2000. The complainant also took the plea that his marriage with accused was duly consummated and one male child was born out of said wedlock on 18.11.2008. The complainant specifically averred in para no. 11 of complaint case U/s 200 Cr.PC that he came across photocopy of certified copy issued by matrimonial Court, in the personal file of accused while he was looking for some documents with regard to his company on 31.01.2015, whereafter he applied for certified copy of said order and other relevant documents and came to know about the fact that accused was already got married with B.S. Chauhan. The said averments are also part of his deposition as CW1 recorded during pre summoning evidence before trial Court. The document of Jeevan Sathi.com put forth by accused cannot be looked into at this stage. Same constitutes the defence raised by accused & thus, same is required to be proved by her at the appropriate stage.
In view of the aforesaid averments made in the complaint case coupled with the relevant documents brought on record during the course of pre summoning evidence, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of complainant that there is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial Court thereby summoning the petitioner as an accused to face the charges. All the authorities relied by Ld. Senior Advocate of petitioner /accused are not applicable at this stage. The petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to take benefit thereof at this stage, for the simple reason that all the said judgments were delivered at the final stage after conclusion of trial, whereas the petitioner has just been summoned as an accused to face trial for the Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 8 of 9 Criminal Revision No. 57420/16 D.O.D.: 04.08.2016 offences alleged against her. Moreover, the complainant/respondent no. 2 deserves to be afforded an opportunity to prove those allegations during the course of trial by producing his witnesses. The complaint case filed by him cannot be thrown away at the very threshhold either by making roving enquiry into the allegations made by complainant or by accepting the defence raised by the accused/revisionist.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. Consequently, same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today
On 04.08.2016 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts/Delhi
Ms. Neetu Vs. State of Delhi (Through its P.P.)& Anr. Page 9 of 9