Poonam Rani And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed against

the order dated 07.05.2018, passed in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2016, Hemant Chaudhary vs. Smt. Poonam Rani and others, by the Court of 6th

Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun (this case shall hereinafter referred to as ‘the revision’).

Respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners and one Balak Ram Verma for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420,

384, 504 and 506 IPC, in the court of learned A.C.J. 3rd (J.D.), Dehradun, which was registered as Complaint No. 3518 of 2015. According to the

complaint, petitioner no.2 and 3 persuaded the respondent no.2 to marry with petitioner no.1. Petitioner no. 2 is mother, petitioner no. 3 is father and

petitioner no. 4 is brother of petitioner no.1. Very hurriedly on 08.03.2014, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2 were married. After the marriage,

respondent no. 2 noticed that petitioner no.1 would speak to some person at odd hours. After a lot of inquiry, respondent no.2 could find out that in

fact, the petitioner no. 1 had already been married to a person named, Monu S/o Chandra Lal @ Chandrapal and she would speak to him quite

frequently. Thereafter, what happened in between the parties has been detailed in the complaint which is quite lengthy. After inquiry under Sections

200 and 202 of the Code, learned Trial Court by an order dated on 09.03.2016 dismissed the complaint. The order dismissing the complaint was

challenged by the respondent no. 2 in criminal revision no. 66 of 2016, Hemant Chaudhary vs. Smt. Poonam Rani and others, in the Court of 6th

Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. The said revision was decided on 7th May, 2018 and the order impugned dated 9th March, 2016 passed in the

case was set aside and the learned trial court was directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the order. In paras 9, 10

and 11 of the order, the revisional court has referred to the evidence and the statements made on behalf of the petitioners. In fact, on behalf of the

petitioners, it was admitted during the arguments in revision that the petitioner no.1 had already been married and her marriage with respondent no.2

was her second marriage. The revisional court held that prima facie a case under Section 494 IPC is made out.

Today, when the matter was being argued, the Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioner no.1 had already

been married before she married to respondent no.2. To it, learned counsel for the petitioners would say that he cannot say anything about it.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that there is no material to prima facie establish that an offence under Section 494 IPC has been

committed by the petitioners.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that there are materials which reveal that petitioner no.1 committed an

offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and to it other petitioners assisted, helped, planned and conspired.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 urged that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2

has been annulled in Original Suit No. 836 of 2015 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Dehradun, under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on

22.11.2018 on the ground that petitioner no.1 already had a living spouse when she married to respondent no.2.

Standard of proof in the criminal case varies at different stages. While taking cognizance and summoning the accused what is required is mere

prima facie case. What would be the material sufficient to make out the prima facie case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the instant case, according to the complaint the petitioner no.1 was already married and had a spouse living when she married to the respondent

no.2. All other petitioners persuaded the respondent no.2 to marry petitioner no.1. The respondent no.2 was never told by any of the petitioners that

petitioner no.1 had already been married. Respondent no. 2 has at the stage of inquiry under Section 200 of the Code, stated about it. In para 5 of the

order dated 09.03.2016 of the trial court, reference has been made to the photographs and some recorded conversation. As stated, some more

materials were placed in the revision. It is noted in para 10 of the judgment passed in the revision. Most importantly, in para 11 of the judgment of the

revisional court, the factum of admission of second marriage of petitioner no. 1 is recorded. On behalf of the petitioners, itself it is admitted that it was

the second marriage of petitioner no.1 with the respondent no.2.

While considering all these materials, this Court is of the view that the learned revisional court did not commit any illegality to observe that an

offence punishable under Section 494 IPC is made out. The offence under Section 494 isp rima facie made out against petitioner no.1 and against

petitioner no. 2, 3, & 4, prima facie offence under Section 494 IPC read with Section 120B IPC is made out. Hence, the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

The petition is dismissed accordingly.