CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 05 UK CK 0068

Meera Bishwas and Vishwanath Bishwas vs State of Uttarakhand and Phoolmala

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 11 May 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 393 of 2011
Download PDFOriginal PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 339 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

2.

By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), the Petitioners have sought quashing of the charge sheet which is registered as Criminal Case No. 4062 of 2009, State v. Dhroov Kumar and Ors., relating to offences punishable u/s 494, 496, 498A, 376, 323, 506, 120B IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that it is accused Dhroov Kumar who is said to have got married to Phoolmala without getting dissolved his marriage with his first wife Rakhi. It is pleaded that the Petitioners are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of Dhroov Kumar.

4.

In the first information report (for short F.I.R.), informant Phoolmala has alleged that the Petitioners namely Meera Bishwas and Vishwanath Bishwas got settled marriage of Dhroov Kumar (brother of Meera) with the informant knowing well that he (Dhroov Kumar) was a married man. It is further alleged in the F.I.R., by the informant that by concealing his first marriage, rape has been committed on the informant by Dhroov. The complicity of the two Petitioners is alleged in the FIR.

5.

No doubt, the offences punishable u/s 494 IPC, and one punishable u/s 376 IPC, are not attracted as against the present Petitioners, for which Dhroov may or may not be responsible, but their complicity is required to be examined in connection with other offences by the trial Court.

6.

In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with the observation that if the Petitioners Meera Bishwas and Vishwanath Bishwas surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. It shall be kept in mind that the ingredients of the offences punishable u/s 376 IPC, or that of 494 IPC, are not attracted as against the present Petitioners. (Stay application No. 454 of 2011, stands disposed of).