Delhi High Court
Chatar Singh vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 26 July, 2011
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No.888/2010 & Crl.M.A. No.3247/2010 (Stay)
% Decided on: 26th July, 2011
KANWAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.S. Negi, Advocate.
Versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for the State.
Mr. Surender Tyagi, Adv. for R-2.
AND
+ CRL.M.C. 896/2010 & Crl.M.A. No.3260/2010 (Stay)
DIWAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.S. Negi, Advocate.
Versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for the State.
Mr. Surender Tyagi, Adv. for R-2.
AND
+ CRL.M.C. 897/2010 & Crl.M.A. No.3262/2010 (Stay)
CHATAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.S. Negi, Advocate.
Versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for the State.
Mr. Surender Tyagi, Adv. for R-2.
AND
Crl. M.C. 888/2010 & connected matters Page 1 of 6
+ CRL.M.C. 942/2010 & Crl.M.A. No.3405/2010 (Stay)
JAIPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.S. Negi, Advocate.
Versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for the State.
Mr. Surender Tyagi, Adv. for R-2.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Not Necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The abovementioned petitions are disposed off by a common order. The
Petitioners in these petitions seek quashing of order dated 27th November, 2009
passed by the learned ACMM summoning the Petitioners for offence punishable
under Section 494 IPC. The Petitioners are the brothers of accused No.2 Seema
Devi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Savita, Respondent No.2 got married
to Satpal on 26th April, 1996 according to Hindu Rites at Faridabad and out of the
wedlock, a male male child was born on 1st July, 1999. Till 20th June, 2001 Savita
and Satpal resided together at House No.1020, Ward No.7, Mehrauli, New Delhi. It
is alleged that soon after the marriage, the Petitioners started harassing Savita and
finally in the year 2001, she filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu
Marriage Act against Satpal which was later on converted into a divorce petition by
mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The order on
first motion petition was passed on 6th March, 2003 by the Additional District
Judge. It is alleged that Satpal did not come forward for the second motion and
hence the marriage between Savita and Satpal could not be dissolved. Further, it is
alleged that during the subsistence of marriage between Satpal and Savita, Satpal
married Seema according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies in Dehradun on 23rd
January, 2005. Thereafter, Satpal and Seema resided together as husband and wife.
On 11th January, 2009 both Satpal and Seema forcibly entered in the house of Savita
at House No.1043, Ward No.8, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Hence, Savita filed
Complaint Case No.18/2009. Taking cognizance in the said case, the learned
ACMM passed the order dated 27th November, 2009 summoning the Petitioners
herein along with other accused persons, which order is impugned in the present
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that they have been falsely
implicated by the Respondent No.2 Savita in the present case. The only allegation
against the Petitioners is that they hatched a conspiracy against the complainant and
were the witnesses to the marriage between accused No.1 Satpal and accused No.2
Seema. It is contended that the complaint of the Savita is highly motivated and
mala fide as is apparent on its face, as all the near relatives have been implicated to
face the rigors of criminal trial merely because they attended the wedding of Satpal
and Seema. The marriage between them took place in the year 2005 and
complainant Savita filed a complaint only in the year 2009 after a lapse of four
years which is highly belated. The complainant Savita is using the complaint case
as a tool to harass Satpal and Seema. An offence under Section 494 IPC is
committed by either spouse who remarry during subsistence of a legal and valid
marriage and hence the Petitioners only being relatives of Satpal and Seema ought
not to have been summoned under Section 494 IPC as they are not covered under its
ambit by any stretch. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and hence liable to be
set aside.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 Savita contends that the Petitioners
have been rightly summoned as the Petitioners have abetted the offence punishable
under Section 494 IPC. The Petitioners, according to the learned counsel, did not
merely attend the marriage but also actively participated in the marriage and
conspired against her. The Petitioners had complete knowledge of the fact that the
first marriage of Satpal with Savita was not dissolved, therefore, they have
committed an offence punishable under Section 109 IPC read with Section 494 IPC.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is clear that the accused No.1
Satpal and Respondent No.2 Savita had moved to the Court for divorce and had
proceeded towards the first motion but the decree of divorce could not be passed as
accused No.1 did not come forward for the second motion. Respondent No.2 Savita
thereafter in 2009 filed the Complaint Case against the Petitioners, Satpal, and other
accused wherein she alleges about the second marriage in the year 2005. The
present petitions can be disposed of on the short point as to whether the ingredients
of offence under Section 494 IPC are made out against the Petitioners or not. It
would be relevant to note Section 494 IPC at this stage:
"Section 494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband
or wife
Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any
case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking
place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
Exception.--This section does not extend to any person
whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared
void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person
who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband
or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent
marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person
for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of
by such person as being alive within that time provided the
person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before
such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such
marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the
same are within his or her knowledge."
6. A perusal of the Section shows that the offence under the Section is
committed by either spouse, who remarries during subsistence of a legal and valid
marriage. The Petitioners in the present petitions could not be summoned under the
said provision. The Petitioners are merely the relatives of accused No. 2, who
attended the wedding. Hence summons issued against them under Section 494 IPC
is bad in law. Thus, the impugned order dated 27th November, 2009, qua the
Petitioners cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly quashed.
7. Petitions are disposed of.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 26, 2011
VKM
