Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Manoj Kumar And Others Pending In The ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No or directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
13.12.2023 C-482 No.2391 of 2023
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel, appears
for the applicants.
2. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Assistant Government
Advocate with Ms. Minakshi Sharma, learned Brief
Holder for the State, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No. 1.
3. Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant shall take
steps, within a period of one week, to serve respondent
No. 2 by registered post.
5. All the applicants are facing trial in respect of the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and
506 of IPC in Criminal Case No. 3953 of 2023 State vs.
Manoj Kumar and others pending in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun,
District Dehradun.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
pursuant to the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2,
Charge-Sheet was filed on 18.11.2022 against all the
applicants, including one Manoj Kumar, son of applicant
No. 1, who, according to the prosecution, was the
husband of respondent No. 2. This person-Manoj Kumar
died on 03.01.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
in fact late Manoj Kumar, son of applicant No. 1,
married with another lady in the year 2007, namely Ms.
Manisha, however, due to some differences between
both of them, a divorce petition was filed, which was
decreed on 09.03.2021.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants further
submits that since Manoj Kumar married with another
lady in the year 2007 and the divorce petition was
decreed on 09.03.2021, this fact itself falsifies the
allegations as alleged in the FIR lodged by respondent
No. 2, because in the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 it
is alleged that Manoj Kumar married with respondent
No. 2 on 26.04.2016.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants further
submits that even otherwise, if this date of marriage
with respondent No. 2, i.e. 26.04.2016 is taken into
consideration, even then, this marriage will be treated
as Null and Void in view of Section 5 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. He further submits that since the
marriage, as alleged, with late Manoj Kumar cannot be
treated as a valid marriage, and respondent No. 2
cannot be treated as the legally wedded wife of late
Manoj Kumar, as such, no offences are made out
against the present applicants in respect of the
allegations, as alleged in the FIR. He further submits
that while submitting the Charge-Sheet, the
Investigating Officer, in a very casual and mechanical
manner, submitted the charge-sheet. He further
submits that it is a case, which appears to be an
implication with some ulterior motive and purposes,
which is one of the category of cases as categorised by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 which still
holds a good law. In reference of void marriage,
learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on a
judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case
of Ramnarayan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1997
0 Supreme (MP) 665. All these aspects are required
to be considered only after inviting counter-affidavits
from the respondents.
10. Let counter-affidavit(s) be filed by the
respondents within a period of three weeks.
11. List this matter on 08.01.2024.
12. In the meantime, further proceeding of Criminal
Case No. 3953 of 2023 State vs. Manoj Kumar and
others, wherein the applicants are facing trial in respect
of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
504 & 506 of IPC, pending in the Court of 1st Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun
shall remain stayed qua the applicants.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J)
13.12.2023
Rathour
