Mohinderjit Kaur and Another vs Parminder Kaur Gill

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—Parminder Kaur Gill respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and others for offence under Sections 494 and 494 read with Section 109, IPC on the allegations that she was married to Sukhdev Singh Gill accused No. 1 in the complaint, about 12 years prior to the filing of the complaint, at Moga by Anand Karj ceremony. She lived with Sukhdev Singh as his wife in Dogar Basti, Faridkot, but no child was born out of this wed lock. Sukhdev Singh practised as an Advocate at Faridkot while she was employed as D.P.E. in Barring College, Batala. She frequently visited Faridkot and sometimes Sukhdev Singh came to Batala. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Surinder Singh and Mohinderjit Kaur parents of accused No. 2 were employed as teachers in Education Department at Faridkot and they were well acquainted with her mother who was also posted as a teacher in Government Girls School Faridkot. They knew about her marriage with Sukhdev Singh but in spite of that all the accused after consultations and fully knowing that she was the legally wedded wife of Sukhdev Singh performed marriage of Surinder Jit Kaur accused No. 2 with Sukhdev Singh. The second marriage was performed by Bhagwan Singh Granthi by Anand Karj ceremony. Surinder Singh and Mohinderjit Kaur parents of Surinder Jit Kaur, Nirmal Singh brother Surinder Kaur brother''s wife and Manjit Kaur sister i.e. accused No. 3 to 7 participated in the marriage and the second marriage took place with their help.

Preliminary evidence was recorded in the case and after thoroughly discussing the same the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot found that a prima facie case u/s 494, IPC was made out against Sukhdev Singh and Surinder Jit Kaur accused and for an offence u/s 494 read with Section 109, IPC against Surinder Singh Mohinderjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh but since Surinder Singh died during the pendency of the case proceedings abated against him, Surinder Kaur and Manjit Kaur were discharged.

The petitioners Mohinderjit Kaur i.e. mother of Surinderjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh her brother filed the present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing that complaint Annexure P/1 and the order dated 28-9-1992 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot Annexure P/2 on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint did not indicate commission of any offence by them and the proceedings initiated against them were illegal and mala fide. Even the evidence brought on record in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot did not disclose commission of any offence by them. The impugned order Annexure P/2 was passed without application of judicial mind and was void ab initio. Surinderjit Kaur was a practising lawyer and both she and Sukhdev Singh were matured persons capable of taking independent decisions about their personal matters.

No return was filed by the respondent.

It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that there were no specific allegations in the complaint as to how the petitioners abetted the commission of the offence of bigamy by Sukhdev Singh and Surinderjit Kaur. Their mere presence at the time of alleged marriage did not amount to abetment of the commission of any offence. They had not in any way instigated the other two accused to enter into the second marriage. Therefore the complaint did not disclose the ingredients of abetment of the offence and was liable to be quashed on that account.

This contention of the learned counsel is not tenable because there are specific allegations in the complaint that parents of Surinder Jit Kaur were aware that Sukhdev Singh was married to Parminder Kaur respondent and irrespective of that knowledge parents and brother of Surinderjit Kaur actively participated in the marriage of the two accused. In para No. 4 of the complaint it was mentioned that mother of the complainant remained posted as teacher in Government Girls School, Faridkot and parents of Surinderjit Kaur were also employed as teachers and they had great affection for each other and knew about the marriage of the respondent with Sukhdev Singh. They performed marriage of Surinder Jit Kaur after due consultations being fully aware of earlier marriage of Sukhdev Singh with the respondent. In para No. 7 of the complaint it was again mentioned that parents and brother of Surinder Jit Kaur participated in the marriage and it was with their help that the marriage was performed. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there were no specific averments in the complaint regarding the petitioner''s intentionally aiding in the performance of second marriage of Sukhdev Singh with Surinder Jit Kaur during his subsisting marriage with the respondent. A number of witnesses were examined by the respondent to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner and the gist of their testimony is reproduced by the trial Court in the summoning order Annexure P/2. The respondent led evidence to show that her marriage was validly performed with Sukhdev Singh and she lived with him as his wife the other accused had knowledge of her marriage with Sukhdev Singh. Witnesses were also produced to show that marriage of Surinder Jit Kaur was performed with Sukhdev Singh by Bhagwan Singh Granthi of Royal Gurudwara at Faridkot who appeared as PW 4 and brother of Surinder Jit Kaur, namely Nirmal Singh had been going to the Gurudwara in order to secure the services of Bhagwan Singh for the performance of Anand Karj ceremony. After considering the evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that prima facie the petitioners were liable for an offence u/s 494 read with Section 109, IPC as they had intentionally aided the commission of the crime. It was not a case of mere presence at the scene of a bigamous marriage. The marriage was performed in the house of the petitioners. They actively participated in the same and in this way intentionally aided in the performance. There is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.