Delhi High Court
Ms Neetu Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 21 July, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : JULY 21, 2017
+ Crl.M.C.2063/2017
MS NEETU SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Geeta Luthra, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Kumar Sushabhan, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
Crl.M.A.8489/2017 (Delay)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in re-
filing the petition is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.2063/2017 & Crl.M.A.8487/2017
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated
4.8.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision
No.57420/2016 whereby the order dated 26.10.2015 of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.55/1/2015 by which she
was summoned to face proceedings under Section 494/495 IPC was
upheld.
2. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and
have examined the file.
3. Perusal of the file reveals that in the Complaint Case filed under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and others, the complainant
Rajeev Saumitra averred that marriage between him and the petitioner
took place on 12.03.2006. The marriage was consummated and a child
was born out of the wedlock on 18.11.2008. It is further alleged that the
petitioner had concealed the factum of her previous marriage with one
Capt.Bacchan Singh Chauhan. At the time of petitioner's marriage with
the complainant, her marriage with Capt.Bacchan Singh Chauhan was
subsisting and she deliberately concealed the said fact claiming herself
to be spinster. In November, 2014, he came to know that the petitioner
was already married before marrying him. On 31.1.2015, when he was
looking for some documents with regard to his company, he noticed a
photocopy of a certified copy issued by the Court of Sh.Dinesh Dayal,
ADJ, Delhi in personal file of the petitioner. Thereafter, he applied for
certified copies and came to know about the factum of marriage of the
petitioner with Capt. Bacchan Singh Chauhan.
4. In pre-summoning evidence, the complainant examined himself
as CW-1. He proved various documents including marriage card in
respect of his marriage with the petitioner (Ex.CW-1/A); copies of
affidavits sworn in First Motion Petition (Ex.CW1/B and CW-1/C);
certified copy of the said petition (Ex.CW-1/D); copy of marriage
certificate in respect of previous marriage of the petitioner with
Capt.Bachhan Singh Chauhan (Ex.CW-1/E) and certified copy of the
statement and order dated 9.10.2000 and photographs of previous
marriage of the petitioner (Ex.CW1/F) collectively. On perusal of the
material and after considering the submissions of the complainant, the
trial court summoned the petitioner for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 494/495 IPC by an order dated 26.10.2015.
The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No.57420/2016.
By a detailed order dated 04.08.2016, the Revisional Court dismissed
the revision.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urged that the necessary
ingredients regarding valid marriage between the petitioner and
Capt.Bachhan Singh Chauhan have not been incorporated in the
complaint and there was no evidence/proof if necessary ceremonies
including 'Sapdapadi' as per Hindu rites and rituals had taken place that
time. It was incumbent for the complainant to establish that both the
marriages with him and with Capt.Bachhan Singh Chauhan were valid
in law. She further urged that the complaint case was not maintainable
as the complainant was not an 'aggrieved person'.
6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that there is no
categorical denial if the petitioner had not performed marriage with the
complainant on 12.03.2006. She did not deny if the child was not born
out of this wedlock. There are specific and definite allegations in the
complaint whereby the petitioner concealed the factum of her previous
marriage with Capt.Bacchan Singh Chauhan. The complainant has
produced various documents to prima facie infer that Capt.Bacchan
Singh Chauhan had married the petitioner on a specific date and the
said marriage was subsisting at the time of her marriage with him.
These allegations cannot be brushed aside or ignored at this stage.
Reliability or veracity of allegations made in the complaint cannot be
gone into in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Well-
settled position is that at the stage of summoning, no roving inquiry is
required to be made. Only prima facie view is to be taken by the court
at that stage to make up the mind on the basis of material available
before it as to whether there existed sufficient grounds to proceed
against such accused or not.
7. Whether complaint under Sections 494/495 IPC is maintainable
by the spouse of second marriage is no longer res integra as Apex Court
in A. Subash Babu vs.State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 616 has,
on this aspect, observed as under:-
"If the woman with whom the second marriage is
performed by concealment of the former marriage is
entitled to file a complaint for commission of offence
under Section 495 IPC, there is no reason why she
would not be entitled to file a complaint under Section
494 IPC more particularly when Section 495 IPC is an
extension and part and parcel of Section 494 IPC.
For all these reasons, it is held that the woman with
whom a second marriage is contracted by suppressing
the fact of former marriage would be entitled to
maintain a complaint against her husband under
Sections 494 and 495 IPC.
The argument that the learned Magistrate could not
have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under
Sections 494 and 495 IPC on the basis of the police
report i.e. charge-sheet, as those offences are non-
cognizable and therefore, the relief claimed in the
petition filed before the High Court under Section 482
of the Code should have been granted as devoid of
merits."
8. In the light of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present
petition and the same is dismissed. All pending application(s) also
stand disposed of.
9. Observations in the order shall have no impact on merits of the
case.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
JULY 21, 2017/sa
