Sheela Singh @ Madhu Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr. Anjay Mishra, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer and Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the respondents.

This Criminal Revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order of acquittal dated 17.04.2018 passed in criminal complaint case No. 449/2013 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.).

As per the case of the complainant/applicant is that her marriage with the respondent/accused Dr. Ram Keshwar @ Dr. R.K. Singh was solemnized on 11.05.1995 at Balco, District Korba, according to Hindu customs and rituals. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the respondent subjected the applicant to cruelty, and thereafter on 14.12.2003, without obtaining divorce from the applicant, contracted a second marriage with one Sudha Kachhwaha at Gayatri Shakti Pith, Civil Line, Mandla, District Mandla (M.P.). On gaining knowledge of the said marriage, the applicant raised objection, and the fact was confirmed to her father and brother by the Manager of the said institution, though no document was provided. Consequently, a criminal complaint under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC was filed on 27.12.2006 against the respondent and other accused persons. After recording the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, registered the offence against accused Dr. R.K. Singh and Shanker Prasad on 11.05.2007. Thereafter, during trial, the complainant’s statement was recorded, but on 17.04.2018, the trial court, in undue haste and without the matter being fixed for evidence, closed the case and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed Cr.M.P. No.1044/2018 before this Hon’ble Court, which was subsequently withdrawn on 17.09.2019 with liberty to file a revision, and accordingly the present revision has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law as well as on facts, inasmuch as the court below failed to appreciate the true state of proceedings. It is submitted that on 17.04.2018 the matter was not fixed for evidence, rather it was fixed for awaiting the original record requisitioned by the appellate court, as is evident from the order dated 04.04.2018. However, by deliberate misinterpretation, the court below treated the date as fixed for “आरोप पर्वूPसाक्ष्य,” and on the ground of absence of witnesses, illegally closed the evidence and acquitted the accused, though the record had been requisitioned and the matter adjourned on several earlier dates for that very purpose. It is further urged that the court below ignored the fact that Jayant Verma, Manager of Gayatri Shakti Pith, Mandla, had already been examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and was summoned as a material witness, yet his deposition was not recorded despite liberty earlier granted. By order dated 19.12.2017, the trial court wrongly restricted the examination of witnesses only to the complainant and Jayant Verma, though a detailed witness list was already filed. The complainant’s revision against this restriction (Criminal Revision No.10/2018) was disposed of hastily on 10.04.2018, the certified copy received only on 16.04.2018, and on the very next day i.e. 17.04.2018, the impugned acquittal was passed, depriving the complainant of an effective remedy.

Learned  counsel  for  the  applicant  has  further  relied  upon  the judgment  of  the  co-ordinate  Bench  of  this  High  Court  in  Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh v. Smt. Sheela Singh @ Madhu Singh in support of his submissions. He also submits that vital documentary evidence such as voter list under the RTI Act and LIC records showing the respondent describing Sudha Singh as his wife were ignored, though liberty had been granted earlier to adduce such additional evidence. The application for amendment was also wrongly rejected and the revision (Criminal Revision No.9/2018) dismissed only on the ground of delay. Thus, the complainant, being a lady fighting grave injustice, has been denied fair opportunity of hearing, and the impugned acquittal order is ab initio illegal, perverse and unsustainable.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for quashing the impugned order of acquittal dated 17.04.2018 passed in criminal complaint case No. 449/2013 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) and there is no illegality and infirmity in passing the same, therefore, the instant petition is premature and liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the findings in the impugned order of acquittal dated 17.04.2018 passed in criminal complaint case No. 449/2013 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.), I do not find any good ground raised by the counsel for the applicant in the instant case and I am of the considered opinion that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) has not committed any illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Let a copy of this order as well as original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.