Kabal Singh vs Balbir Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J.

Kabal Singh by means of this criminal miscellaneous under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks the quashing of the complaint dated 3.4.89, Annexure P1 and the summoning order dated 30.9.89, Annexure P2 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.

Smt. Balbir Kaur who is the wife of Mohinder Singh, brother of the petitioner, brought a complaint under sections 494/109, Indian Penal Code against Mohinder Singh, Kabal Singh and others. The allegations made by the respondent may be briefly noted.

The respondent was married to Mohinder Singh, about 23 years prior to the filing of the complaint in accordance with the Sikh rites and they both lived together as husband and wife. Her husband owns about 15/16 acres of land and is also possessed of about 14/15 lacs of rupees in cash. He was unhappy with her, as she was unable to bear a child and on that basis, he has been harassing her for the last 2/3 years. About 6 months earlier, he started beating her and even gave out threats to kill her and he asked her for a divorce in writing. He also wanted to obtain her statement, but she did not agree. On 24.3.89 Mohinder Singh married Smt. Deepo in accordance with Anand Karaj ceremony, which ceremony was performed at the house of Hoshiar Singh a friend of Mohinder Singh at village Kabarwala. It was to the knowledge of all the accusedpersons that Mohinder Singh was married to the respondent and had not obtained any divorce. Performance of second marriage was an offence. Kabal Singh''s wife having given her this information about the second marriage her brother lqbal Singh went to village Ranipur and gave information to Smt. Deepo and Smt. Guro about his being already married and that they should not ruin her family. The marriage ceremony was performed in accordance with Sikh religion and Smt. Deepo accepted him as her husband. At the time of Lawan, Smt. Guro mother of Smt. Deepo and Kabal Singh threw flowers, showered praises and also recited some Shabads and raised Jaikaras. During the Lawan, the accused garlanded Deepo and Mohinder Singh. They gave him gifts and wished them well. At the first instance, Smt. Deepo was kept at the house of Kabal Singh, but was then brought by Mohinder Singh to his house who was keeping her there as his wife.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in order to make out an offence u/s IPC, the complainant had to plead and prove the ceremonies of both the marriages in accordance with some accepted form of marriage and also establish the performance of all the necessary ceremonies of that form of marriage. Since in the complaint, no such allegations have been made, no offence could be made out on the basis of the complaint lodged and the summoning order is bad in law and the complaint is liable to be quashed. This argument of the learned counsel has force and is supported by a judicial pronouncement in Kanwal Ram v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration, A.I.R. 1966 SC 614. Their Lordships held that in a bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the essential ceremonies constituting it, must be proved. Admission of marriage by the accused is not evidence of it for the purpose of proving marriage in an adultery or bigamy case.

In Resham Singh v. Kartar Singh, 1983(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 497 : 1984 PLR 78, M.M. Punchhi, J. (as his Lordship then was) made the following observations :

"...That marriage by Anand Karaj has essential ceremonies of four Lawans made by the groom followed by the bride around the holy Guru Granth Sahib amidst the chanting of the recitations of the hymns, composed by the Fourth Guru, Guru Ram Dass are the accepted essential ceremonies. See in this connection my decision in Darshan Singh v. The State of Punjab. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out to me even a word from the statements of the witnesses which could show that any ceremony was referred to by the PWs. Their saying that Anand Karaj was performed is not enough."

In Raj Pal Singh v. Smt. Raj Dolari alias Rajeshwari Singh, 1990(2) Recent CR 104, S.S. Grewal, J. held that for a proof of bigamy, the complainant has to plead and prove either form of marriage or essential ceremonies performed for solemnization of first marriage and has also to prove the second marriage likewise. Since the complaint is silent as to the performance of essentials of marriage, both with respect to first marriage and second marriage, on a plain reading of the complaint Annexure P1 no offence u/s 494, IPC is made out.

I hereby, accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned complaint and the consequent summoning order.

Misc accepted.