Amardeep Singh and Others vs Mandeep Kaur

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—The prevent criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the criminal revision filed by respondent Mandeep Kaur was accepted and the learned trial court was directed to pass fresh order regarding framing of charges as per law. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent-complainant, Mandeep Kaur, was solemnized with Amardeep Singh (petitioner No. 1) on 10.02.1991 at village Mehndipur as per Anand Karz ceremony. No child was born out of the said wedlock and hence, the husband and other family members of Amardeep Singh were condemning her as barren. Her in-laws were also demanding dowry in the shape of Bullet motor cycle, maruti car etc. Despite intervention of Panchayat, the matter could not be resolved. Her in-laws also misappropriated the istri dhan of Mandeep Kaur and, therefore, FIR No. 93 dated 26.09.1996 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC, was registered against Amardeep Singh, Shingara Singh, Balbir Kaur, Rajwinder Kaur, Gurpal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh @ Sonu. Without knowledge of Mandeep Kaur, an ex parte decree of divorce was obtained by Amardeep Singh and an application for setting aside the said decree was presented by Mandeep Kaur in the month of September, 2000. Mandeep Kaur and her family came to know that Amardeep Singh had performed second marriage with Manjit Kaur on 05.12.1998. Harjit Kaur @ Choti had acted as a mediator to the second marriage. Sukhdev Singh and Surinder Kaur are the parents of the second wife of Amardeep Singh. All the accused named in the complainant filed by the complainant, Mandeep Kaur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 494 read with Section 120B, IPC, joined hands to get the marriage between Amardeep Singh and Manjit Kaur solemnized. All of them had complete knowledge that the first marriage of Amardeep Singh with Mandeep Kaur was still in subsisting. On 24.08.1999, a child was born from the second wife of Amardeep Singh at Kokila Maternity Home, Jagroan. The birth entry of the said child in the name of Gurleen Singh was entered in the register of the Municipal Council, Jagraon. Mandeep Kaur approached the police but the case was registered for the offence punishable u/s 420, IPC, only vide FIR No. 113 dated 05.12.2000. The petitioners/accused were summoned by the learned Area Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable u/s 494 read with Section 120B, IPC, vide order dated 02.08.2001.

After appearance of the petitioners, the complainant/ respondent Mandeep Kaur examined the following witnesses in pre-charge evidence:-

CW-1 Dr. Kokila Gupta

CW-2 Gurdev Singh

CW-3 Manohar Lal

CW-4 Mandeep Kaur, complainant herself

CW-5 Gurdip Singh

and thereafter, the pre-charge evidence was concluded. Vide order dated 27.10.2010, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna, discharged the petitioners.

Dissatisfied with the above said order, Mandeep Kaur filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and the same was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2013. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna, was manifestly wrong and erroneous and, thus, the same was liable to be set aside. It was directed that the learned trial court would appreciate the evidence adduced by the complainant and pass a fresh order of framing charge as per law.

Aggrieved against the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the petitioners have filed the present criminal revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed an illegal and manifestly wrong order and the same was liable to be set aside. He further submits that after scanning the whole evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class had rightly pronounced the discharge order. He further argues that from the perusal of the evidence of the five witnesses examined by the complainant, prima facie case for commission of the offence u/s 494 read with Section 120B, IPC, was not made out and hence, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the material available on record.

It is by now settled by various pronouncements of different courts that charges can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion about commission of the offence and involvement of the accused; and at that stage, there is no necessity of formulating an opinion about the prospect of conviction.

After appreciating the whole material available on record, the learned Revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge had found that the learned trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence and the material available before the said court. The grounds recorded by the learned trial court in support of the discharge order were not sound. Though the learned Court of Session could itself order that prima facie case was made out from framing the charges against the petitioners/accused but as a matter of abundant caution, the Revisional Court directed the learned trial court to appreciate the material afresh and then to decide as to whether prima facie case was made out for framing charges against the accused. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are well based. As many as five witnesses have been examined by the complainant in support of her allegations. CW-1 Dr. Kokila Gupta had deposed regarding the birth of a child from the second wife of the husband of the complainant. CW-2 Gurdev Singh deposed that he attended the second marriage of the husband of the complainant. CW-3 Manohar Lal had deposed regarding the birth entry of the child who had taken birth from the second wife of the Amardeep Singh. CW-5 Gurdip Singh, a clerk, from Nankana Sahib Public School, Ludhiana, deposed regarding the admission of a son of Amardeep Singh who had taken birth from his second wife.

The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not well based. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after dealing with every aspect of the case rightly accepted the revision petition of the complainant Mandeep Kaur and directed the learned trial court to re-appreciate the evidence and then to form an opinion with regard to the framing of charges.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The observations made hereinabove are limited for the purpose of decision of the present petition only and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.