Karam Singh Vijay and anr.. vs Gurmej Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J.

Karam Singh Vijay and Smt. Sunanda alias Dolly alias Madhu, petitioner and 2 have brought this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing plaint, Smt. Gurmej Kaur v. Karam Singh Vijay & Anr., for offences u/ss. 494/109, IPC, pending in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate, Jalandhar.

According to the averments made in the complaint Annexure PI, filed by the respondent, she was married to petitioner1, about 30/35 years ago, according to Sikh rites, i.e. by Anand Karaj ceremony in the presence of Shri Guru Granth Sahib, by taking four Lawans around the holy Granth and they had been living together, as husband and wife. About 5/6 years ago, accused respondent2 started working in the factory run by complainant and accused 1. Petitioner 1 developed illicit relations with petitioner 2 and out of this relationship, a male child was born. Petitioner1 had been keeping petitioner2 away from the respondent either in rented accommodation or hotels and had been treating her as his wife. Out of this incite relationship, another child was born on 27890 at Chawla Nursing Home, Jalandhar. Both the accused became desperate and wanted to lend a colour of legality to this relationship and therefore petitioner2, in connivance with the active support of petitioner1, trespassed into the house, belonging to respondent, No. 1 56, Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar and locked a portion of it on the day the respondent complainant was away to her parents" house, on the said demise of her father. Thereafter both the petitioners started misconducting themselves towards the respondent and when she asked petitioner2 to vacate the house both of them started threatening her. When the matter was reported to the police. petitioner1 gave in writing, agreeing to send away petitioner2 on or before 28491. Both the petitioners, however continued to have illicit relationship between themselves. The respondent had been insisting that petitioner2 must leave the house as the deadline of 28491 had passed. On 9691, the respondent, convened a Panchayat of the respectables where both the petitioners openly confessed of having entered in to the marriage on 14190 in Gurdwara Jaswant Nagar, Jalandhar, according to, the Sikh rites. On further inquiry Bhai Bachan Singh, and Navdeep Singh admitted having witnessed the marriage of the two petitioners. They had, thus, committed an offence, punishable u/s 494, read with section 09, IPC.

Smt. Gurmej Kaur respondent made her own statement wherein she reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and she described that it was on 9691 that she learnt about the marriage. Bhai Bachan Singh and Navdeep Singh told her that they had witnessed the marriage. She was supported by her brother PW2 Gurbachan Singh that the accused had admitted of having entered into marriage and Bai Bachan Singh and Navdeep Singh had confirmed this fact. PW3 Swaran Singh stated that he was present at Gurdwara Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar on, 14190 where Sunanda alias Dolly alias Madhu came with Karam Singh to marry him. Navdeep Singh was also with him. He had, performed the marriage of Sunanda. Karam Singh forbade him from telling anyone and it was on 9691 that the accused admitted the second marriage when he disclosed this fact to the complainant. PW4 Navdeep Singh stated that in his presence both the accused had married by the performance of Anand Karaj and that the Lawans were recited by Bhai Bachan Singh. He had been told by Karam Singh not to mention the fact to any one.

The essentials of Anand Karaj ceremonies, were considered by M.M. Punchhi, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Resham Singh v. Kartar Singh and Ora., 1983(2) RCR(Crl.) 497 (P&H) : 1984 PLR 78 and the learned Judge observed as under :

"......marriage by Anand Karaj has essential ceremonies of four Lavans 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 P.Ws. Their saying that Anand Karaj was performed is not enough........"

In Raj Pal Singh & Anr. v. Smt Raj Dulari alias Rajeshwari Singh, 1990(2) RCR 104 S.S. Grewal, J.held that for proof of charge of bigamy, the complainant has to plead and prove either form of marriage or essential ceremonies performed for solemnization of first marriage, as well as of the second marriage.

In Kanwal Ram and others v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration, AIR 1966 SC 614 it was held that for proving the charge u/s 494, the second marriage has, to. be proved, as of fact, that is to say the essential ceremonies constituting it. must be proved. Admission of the second marriage by the accuse is no evidence of it for the purpose of a bigamy case.

The principles enunciated in the above quoted authorities are attracted to the facts of the present case. The respondent in her statement stated about: her marriage by Anand Karaj but Gurbachan Singh does not state about any ceremony performed it the time of marriage of the complainant with accused, 1 when Bhai Bachan who claims to have performed the marriage does not speak, of any of the ceremonies performed, but only says that he performed the marriage as ordained by the Gurus in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Navdeep Singh speaks of the Anand Karaj and the Lavans. The admission talked of,by the complainant is not evidence of marriage. The evidence brought, forth does not make out any offence u/s 494, IPC. The summoning order and the complaint are hereby quashed. The criminal miscellaneous is hereby accepted.

Misc accepted.