Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Petitioners seek quashing of complaint Annexure P-1 and the entire proceedings subsequent thereto including the summoning order Annexure P-2.

2. Briefly put, a criminal complaint under Sections 417, 418, 493, 495 and 120B read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed by Amarjit Kaur against the petitioners and after recording the preliminary evidence, petitioner No. 1 has been summoned by the Trial Magistrate under Section 495 I.P.C. and petitioner No. 2 under Section 495 read with Section 109 I.P.C. Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaint of the respondent against other accused. Petitioners seek quashing of the complaint on the ground that the same is vague and it does not disclose commission of offence under Sections 495 and 495/109 I.P.C. It has also been urged that complaint under Section 495 can be filed by the first wife only and not by the second wife. Since respondent-Amarjit Kaur is not a wife of petitioner No. 1, the present complaint is liable to be quashed. Even on facts, respondent has no case. According to petitioner No. 1 he is married to one Jaspal Kaur. In fact Jaspal Kaur filed a petition against the present petitioners and 11 others in which Amarjit Kaur was also impleaded as an accused person. Ultimately, the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 28.11.1983 discharged the accused persons on the ground that Smt. Jaspal Kaur has failed to prove that Balbir Singh had entered into second marriage with Amarjit Kaur. Copy of judgment dated 28.11.1983 is Annexure P-3.

3. Pursuant to the notice of motion issued by the Court, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent-Amarjit Kaur. According to the respondent, she was married to petitioner No. 1 as is proved on the basis of statements of witness. It is also proved on record that Balbir Singh had married Jaspal Kaur, which fact was not disclosed to the answering respondent. Since the answering respondent has been duped she is an aggrieved person and can legitimately file the present complaint in terms of Section 495 I.P.C.

4. The primary submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even if it be a accepted that the respondent is the second wife of petitioner No. 1, she is not an aggrieved party in terms of Section 198 Cr.P.C. and so such a complaint by her under Section 495 I.P.C. was legally not maintainable. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the decisions in Ujjagar Singh & Ors. v. Harbhajan Singh & Anr., 1984(2) RCR 245 and Jarnail Singh v. Swaran Kaur, 1977 CLJ 71. In addition thereto, evidence as regards proof of second marriage is wholly lacking substance in the present case. The necessary ceremonies do not find mention in the complaint or in the statement of the complainant before the Court. Since the necessary ingredients have not been proved, the present complaint is liable to be quashed on this ground as well. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Raj Pal Singh v. Raj Dulari, 1990(2) RCR 104. Lastly Counsel submitted that the present complaint is liable to be quashed being a stale matter. According the Counsel as per version in the complaint the marriage took place sometime in the month of October, 1978 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 11.6.1990. In such like similar circumstances, the Court in Somkar Singh v. Smt. Bimla Devi, 1992(2) RCR 268, quashed the proceedings on account of this time gap.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for getting the complaint quashed is based on Section 198 Cr.P.C. and Section 495 I.P.C. Section 198A Cr.P.C. states that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the CR.P.C. (45 of 1860) except upon the complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The expression 'person aggrieved' has not been defined under the Act. In common parlance, 'aggrieved person' is said to be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongly refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something.