Gurdip Singh and Another vs Mohinder Kaur

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Present petition has been filed by Nirmal Kaur sister of Dhanna Singh and her husband Gurdip Singh praying that complaint dated 23.04.2003 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 04.12.2003 (Annexure P-2) be quashed. On the complaint, the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for an offence punishable u/s 494/34/120-B IPC. The complaint was instituted by Mohinder Kaur, sister of Gurmeet Kaur Sahota. Nirmal Kaur is sister of Dhanna Singh, who was married with Gurmeet Kaur Sahota on 30th March, 1986. A certificate regarding registration of their marriage was attached along with the complaint (Annexure P-1). u/s 198(1)(c) Cr.P.C., Mohinder Kaur being sister of Gurmeet Kaur Sahota, was competent to institute the complaint.

In the preliminary evidence, complainant Mohinder Kaur stepped into the witness box as CW-1 and Joga Singh as CW-2. They stated that Dhanna Singh had performed second marriage on 15th September, 2002. This fact was also corroborated by CW-3 Paramjit Singh. Along with the complaint, the list of witnesses was also annexed. The petitioners have not placed on record the said list, however, the same has been placed on the case file as Annexure R-1 by the complainant. Gurmeet Kaur Sahota, the aggrieved wife, has also been cited as a witness.

Mr. Puran Singh Hundal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has raised following arguments:

(a) That it was incumbent upon the complainant to examine Gurmeet Kaur Sahota, the aggrieved person, in preliminary evidence before the summoning order could be passed.

(b) Secondly, it is urged that the second marriage was solemnized on 15th September, 2002, but Dhanna Singh brother of petitioner No. 2 had obtained a decree of divorce on 23rd April, 2003 from the Court of New Jersey (USA), which has been attached as Annexure P-3. It is contended that the factum of second marriage was not brought to the notice of the Court of New Jersey (USA), even though, Gurmeet Kaur Sahota was allegedly present in India, when alleged second marriage was performed on 15th September, 2002. It is stated that the conduct of the complainant party is highly unnatural, improbable and unconvincing.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me. The arguments advanced may look attractive at the first sight, but for examining these arguments, present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not a proper forum. Once the provisions of Section 198(1)(c) Cr.P.C. vest a right in Mohinder Kaur to institute a complaint and preliminary evidence has been led to this effect, the Court has not found the petitioners guilty, rather it has only satisfied itself that there is material to proceed with the complaint. Examination of Gurmeet Kaur Sahota, the aggrieved wife, will be necessary before any judgment of acquittal or conviction is pronounced. Gurmeet Kaur Sahota could be subjected to cross examination, to find out as to why this fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court of New Jersey (USA), when the decree of divorce was obtained. Neither the petition filed for obtaining divorce nor the written statement filed by Gurmeet Kaur Sahota thereto is present before this Court. As to what explanation Gurmeet Kaur Sahota could offer, this Court cannot visualize. This Court is conscious that in a matrimonial dispute, present petitioners may have been unnecessarily dragged, as the dispute is essentially between Dhanna Singh and Gurmeet Kaur Sahota but all this requires evidence. Therefore, to redress the grievances of the petitioners, this Court feels that the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court can be exempted, as this Court cannot examine the truth and veracity of the allegations leveled, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the trial Court is appropriate forum to appreciate and adjudge the evidence so adduced. Accordingly, personal appearance of the petitioners is exempted before the trial Court, subject to their filing an undertaking that they shall cause their appearance as and when required by the trial Court. They shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel, shall be binding upon them. The trial Court may incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused.

In the present case, complaint was instituted on 24th April, 2003. A period of seven years is going to elapse. In these circumstances, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months. Petitioners will be at liberty to raise all arguments before the trial Court, including those which have been raised in the present petition.

With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of.