Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The time when the opposite party no.2 is alleged to have been harassed by her husband and his relatives, the applicants were not relatives of the husband in any manner. In the FIR, no allegation of harassment was levelled against the applicants, therefore, submission of charge-sheet against the applicants in respect of the offence under section 498-A IPC was misconceived and was a deliberate attempt on the part of the investigating officer to harass the applicants.

Now the question arises as to whether the applicants can be prosecuted for the offence under section 494 IPC or not. Section 494 IPC is as follows :

Section 494 IPC applies to a person who, having a husband or wife living, remarries. In the facts of the instant case, the allegation is that Rajesh Kumar Deorar remarried during subsistence of his first marriage with opposite party no.2. In these circumstances, only Rajesh Kumar Deorar can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 494 IPC. The person, with whom second marriage is performed in violation of section 494 IPC, has not been made liable for punishment in this Section.

For abetment of an offence, it is necessary that the abettor must have either instigated any person to do such an offence or must have engaged in a conspiracy for doing such an illegal act. In the instant case, there is no allegation against the applicants that they instigated Rajesh Kumar Deorar to commit an offence punishable under section 494 IPC. There is no allegation that the applicants engaged themselves in any criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under section 494 IPC. It is the case of applicant no.1 that she did not know about any prior marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar with opposite party no.2. Her presence at the time of incident dated 7.12.2010 has been falsified as held earlier. In the absence of any knowledge of prior marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar, the applicants cannot be held guilty for the offence under section 494 IPC read with section 109 or 114 IPC. As far as the material available in the case diary is concerned, it is evident that the second marriage of Rajesh did not taken place in the presence of opposite party no.2. Yogesh Kumar is a photographer, who performed photography and videography of the marriage, which took place on 9.12.2010 at Haridwar. During further investigation, statements of Laxmi Shanker Srivastava, Roshan Singh and Surendra Singh were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., who stated that they went to Hotel View at Haridwar and found the marriage between Rajesh Kumar Deorar and Rupa being solemnized and seven pheras were performed. They questioned Rajesh Kumar Deorar that his first wife was alive and he did not do a proper thing by performing remarriage, but Rajesh did not reply. From the statements of these three witnesses, only this much transpires that they protested with Rajesh Kumar Deorar about performing second marriage, but did not inform the applicants that Rajesh Kumar Deorar was married earlier with opposite party no.2. They do not even speak about whether saptpadi was performed which is an essential ceremony for a valid marriage.

In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that there was any intentional abetment on the part of the applicants to commit an offence under section 494 IPC. Mere presence of applicants no.2, 3 & 4 at the time of marriage of applicant no.1 with Rajesh Kumar Deorar does not make them criminally liable without any criminal intent on their part.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Rajesh Kumar Deorar and his family members as well as Chhotey Singh and Ram Sajan, who were present at the house of Rajesh Kumar Deorar on 7.12.2010, may be presumed to have the knowledge of alleged earlier marriage of Rajesh Kumar Deorar with opposite party no.2 and may be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 494 IPC or its abetment, but as far as applicants are concerned, there is no material to suggest that they had any prior knowledge of the alleged marriage between the opposite party no.2 and Rajesh Kumar Deorar and, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence under section 494 IPC read with section 109 or 114 IPC.