Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 17.12.2014 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur who dismissed the revision petition directed against the order dated 12.11.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, vide which the petitioners were summoned under Section 494, 120-B IPC in a complaint case filed by respondent no.1.

The matter was referred for settlement before mediation as both the parties were facing criminal trial for the offence under Section 494 IPC. The matter could not be settled. It was reported that petitioner no.1 had submitted that he was not interested in resolving the dispute through mediation.

I have heard both the sides.

The counsel for the petitioners had urged that the marriage of petitioner no.1 was void from the very inception as the wife did not inform that she was earlier married and no divorce had taken place and it was subsequently that they came to know and an FIR was lodged under Section 420 IPC. It was urged that a divorce petition was filed by the complainant's first husband and divorce was granted and copy of the judgment is Annexure P-6. It was urged that the plea taken by the complainant that it was void marriage, was not accepted. It was urged that divorce took place in December, 2010 and marriage between the complainant and petitioner no.1 could not take place. It was urged that the complainant in order to settle scores has not only arrayed the husband but all his relatives and they have been summoned under Section 494, 120-B IPC. It was urged that 11 persons from the family were named in the complaint. It was further submitted that the police had investigated and did not find any truth in the complaint and did not register the FIR. It was urged that if there was a subsisting marriage then no offence under Section 494 IPC would be made out. It was urged that the relatives of the husband cannot be held for abetment and the trial Court had summoned them under Section 120-B IPC and there can be no criminal conspiracy. It was contended that the second marriage during the lifetime of the living spouse would be a void and invalid marriage. It was urged that in a complaint case the relatives could not have been summoned for the offence of bigamy and the summoning order suffers from illegality and it is an abuse of the process of law. It was urged that at the most it could be a case of abetment against them under Section 109 IPC but there are no such allegations against them and the complaint and the summoning order qua the relatives should be quashed. It was urged that all the petitioners have put in appearance before the Court below and charge has not been framed. Reliance was placed upon Seema Rani Vs. Gurpreet Kaur 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 960, Deoki Panjhiyara Vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and another 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 400, Manisha Vs. State of Haryana and another 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 621, Sham Singh Vs. Sarbjit Kaur 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 78, Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. Parveen 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 749, Om Parkash Sharma and others Vs. Jagatjit Singh Ahluwalia 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 496, Balwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 386 and Manoj and others Vs. Prem Lal 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) The submission on the other hand was that the material brought on record by the petitioner cannot be looked into in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the accused can raise the defences at the time of framing charges and it is that Court which will consider the material if the law permits. It was urged that a revision was filed against the summoning order which has been dismissed and this petition would amount to a second revision by the same party and Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a second revision before High Court and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance was placed upon Dharampal Vs. Ramshri 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 696, Ajay Kumar Das Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 231 and Dharmender Vs. State of Haryana and others 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 414.

In Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawahar Lal and other, 1992(3) RCR 534 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the complaint under Sections 494, 109, 120-B IPC against the parents, relatives of the husband and others while coming to the conclusion that no offence under Section 494 IPC is made out against the parents and relations of the husband merely because they were present at the time of second marriage and discussed it in para no.5 as under:-

Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Om Parkash Sharma and others Vs. Jagatjit Singh Ahluwalia, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 496.

Further in the case of Sham Singh V. Sarabjit Kaur, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 78, this Court while quashing the complaint against relatives of the husband and 17 others held that Section 494 Indian Penal Code was not maintainable against the relatives.