Deshraj Vishwakerma vs Smt. Sheela Vishwakarma
2022 Latest Caselaw 15904 MP

                                  1
IN     THE      HIGH       COURT OF MADHYA                   PRADESH
                            AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                   ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14524 of 2017

BETWEEN:-
1.    DESHRAJ   VISHWAKERMA     S/O   RAMNATH
      VISHWAKERMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O
      NAUGAON, ROAD IN FRONT OF DHARAMKANTA
      CHHATARPUR P.S CITY KOTWALI, CHHATARPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ANITA    VISHWAKARMA    W/O   DESHRAJ
      VISHWAKERMA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O
      NAUGAON, ROAD IN FRONT OF DHARAMKANTA
      CHHATARPUR P.S.CITY KOTWALI (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                          .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI J. L. SONI, LEARNED COUNSEL)

AND
1.    SMT. SHEELA VISHWAKARMA W/O DESHRAJ
      VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O
      BEHIND CIRCUIT HOUSE PATHAPUR ROAD,
      CHHATARPUR P.S CITY KOTWALI CHHATARPUR
      AT PRESENT R/O BEHIND BICHPURIYA PETROL
      PUMP WARD NO. 8 NAGAUD P.S NAGAUD
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE POLICE STATION THE STATE OF MADHYA
      PRADESH POLICE STATION NAGAUD (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE BY SHRI MANHAR DIXIT, LEARNED PANEL
LAWYER, AND RESPONDENT NO.,2 BY SHRI V. K. DUBEY, LEARNED
COUNSEL)

      This application coming on for final disposal at motion hearing stage
this day, the court passed the following:
                                    2
                                    ORDER

With the consent, the case is finally heard.

This is a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning the whole proceedings of Criminal Case No.59/2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 12.2.2014 (Annexure A/1) is bad in law whereby the court below has taken cognizance for committing an offence under section 494 of IPC. Criticizing the said order, it is urged that a bare perusal of complaint dated 1.11.2013 (Annexure A/6) shows that a bald allegation was made that petitioner no.1 has solemnized second marriage with the wife of younger brother. The complainant

has not given the date of marriage and has not filed any documentary evidence in support thereof. The court below has mechanically taken cognizance, which is bad in law.

The learned Government counsel and the learned counsel for respondent no.2 have supported the impugned order.

I have gone through the impugned order carefully and examined it in the light of averments mentioned in the complaint (Annexure A/6) but in para 6 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the second illegal marriage had taken place on

17..2.2012 but so far proof, etc. is concerned, it is matter of evidence which can be looked into by the court below at an appropriate stage. If averments of complaints are accepted on its face value, it cannot be said that no offence is made out. The court below, in my judgment, has taken a plausible view in the order dated 12.2.2014.

No case is made out for interference under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE ps

PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA 2022.12.02 11:44:05 +05'30'