Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhola Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 6 December, 2022
CRM-M-11654-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
240
CRM-M-11654-2018
Date of decision: 06.12.2022
BHOLA SINGH
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. G.S. Sidhu Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order 09.08.2017
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the revision
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in default for want of prosecution and
for restoration of CRR-06/14.03.2017.
Briefly put, the complainant had filed criminal complaint under
Sections 494, 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner was married with respondent
No.2-Raj Kaur on 21.12.2005. After marriage he came to know that she earlier
was married with one Naib Dass S/o Chottu Dass. However, respondent No.2
used to quarrel with the petitioner and about four years prior to the year of filing
of the complaint, she left the matrimonial home. The petitioner came to know that
respondent No.2 had married with one Jaswant Singh, without taking valid and
legal divorce from the petitioner, which was in active connivance with co-
accused. The petitioner approached SSP Barnala vide application dated
04.08.2012, but the police had neither investigated the matter nor had taken any
1 of 4
action against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid
complaint against respondent No.2 came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
27.02.2017 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala. Therefore, the petitioner
filed a revision against the said order, which was also wrongly dismissed in
default for want of prosecution on 09.08.2017, as neither the petitioner nor
anyone on his behalf was present. It his submission that the court below ought to
have heard the matter on merit and not dismissed the same in default. The solitary
ground raised in the present petition for non-appearance of the petitioner is that he
had inadvertently noted down the date of hearing as 02.09.2017, and due to fault
of his counsel, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared in the said case. He
thus submitted that sufficient reason has been shown on account of which he was
unable to appear, as such prays that the order dated 09.08.2017 be set aside and
the case be restored to its original number and heard on merits.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG Punjab submits that the petitioner had
half heartedly pursued the case as the complaint was dismissed by the trial Court
on 27.02.2017, whereafter he did not cause appearance before the Court on
09.08.2017 and it has been rightly dismissed for non-prosecution after noticing
the fact that the petitioner had been called a number of times since morning and
the Court had waited till 2:30 PM, still none had appeared on behalf of the
petitioner. He submits that the impugned order is legal and valid. He further
submits that the present petition had been filed after a period of more than 07
months.
Heard.
The order dated 9.8.2017 dismissing the criminal revision filed by the
2 of 4
petitioner reads thus:
"This petition is called for a number of time since
morning. Now it is 02.30 pm, the petition is again called
but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Hence,
this petition stands dismissed in default for want of
prosecution. File be consigned to the record room."
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that though the petitioner
and counsel were absent, respondent No.2-Raj Kaur was present in person along
with her counsel Ms. Bhawana Markanda, Advocate. The petitioner has been
unable to substantiate the reason for his non-appearance except for a bald
statement that wrong date been noted of the case. The petitioner has not even been
prompt in filing the present petition challenging the said order, as it was filed on
12.03.2018 i.e. after a delay of 7 months, for which also there is no cause shown,
much less sufficient. Moreover, the trial Court had duly considered the evidence
putforth by the petitioner to prove the allegations made in the complaint with
regard to marriage of respondent No.2 Jaswant Singh, however, the same was
found to be insufficient. Operative part of judgment dated 27.2.2017 passed by
learned JMIC, Barnala reads thus:-
"7. Perusal of the file shows that complainant had not
advanced sufficient evidence to show that accused Raj
Kaur had performed second marriage without divorcing
the complainant. It is accusation that she has married to
Jaswant Singh. Complainant relied upon Ex.C3 which is
the register of births showing entry of the newly born
boy and the name of the father is shown as Jaswant
Singh and the mother name as Raj Kaur. It is evident on
face of it as to the fact that complainant had failed to
show that she is the same Raj Kaur which is reflected in
3 of 4
Ex.C3. Moreover, it does not show even prima facie that
Raj Kaur had marired to Jaswant Singh. This document
does not prove prima-facie that Raj Kaur had performed
second marriage without divorcing her husband who is
the complainant. The oral evidence presented by
complainant also does not prima-facie prove the said
fact. Hence, in view of the insufficient evidence, no
ground is made out to frame charge against the accused
u/s 494 IPC. Accused is hereby discharge. Accused and
his surety be released from his bail bonds and surety
bonds. File be consigned to the record room after due
compliance of the necessary formalities."
In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition
and as such, the same is dismissed.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
December 06, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)/GSV
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
