Gurcharan Singh alias Gurbachan Singh Bajwa and ors. vs Harvinder Kaur

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Satnam Singh Bajwa married one Parkash Kaur in October, 1975. Petition for divorce filed by him against the wife failed on 31st August, 1982. Satnam Singh, however, turned Parkash Kaur out of her matrimonial home in village Awan, tehsil and district Gurdaspur through sheer highhandedness. On 9th December, 1984 Satnam Singh Bajwa aforesaid, during the subsistence of the earlier wedlock and in the presence of his first wife Parkash Kaur, married Harwinder Kaur complainant.

Gurbachan Singh alias Gurcharan Singh Bajwa, brother of Satnam Singh, Jaspal Singh his son and Surinder Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh Bajwa, another brother of Satnam Singh, are alleged to have gone to the house of parents of harwinder Kaur at Jalandhar, once for seeing bride and again on 9th December, 1984 at the time of marriage knowing fully well that coaccused Satnam Singh was previously married his wife Parkash Kaur was still alive and that the attempt on the part of Satnam Singh to obtain divorce from Parkash Kaur had failed. Parents of Harwinder Kaur are stated to have given Rs. 30,000/ to Satnam Singh and his three relations aforesaid as consideration for marriage. Even though the amount was Stridhan, all the four of them together are still retaining it.

Harwinder Kaur filed a complaint against Satnam Singh and his three relations aforesaid on 15th September, 1986 in the court of Shri R.G. Ahluwalia, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, under Sections 494, 495, 403, 406 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide his assailed order dated 6th November, 1986 learned Judicial Magistrate ordered the summoning of accused Satnam Singh for the commission of the offence under Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code while remaining three relation arrayed at accused 2 to 4 in the complaint; who are petitioners in this Court, were ordered to be summoned for the commission of offence under Section 495/109 of the Indian Penal Code. All the three relations aforesaid have moved Criminal Misc. No. 5255M of 1987 for quashing the orders summoning them.

Section 107 Crl. P.C. defines "abetment" as comprising (a) instigation to commit the offence, (b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence and (c) aiding the commission of an offence. The word "instigate" literally meants to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means, or language, direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. To constitute instigation it is not necessary that express words should be used to indicate what should be done by the person to whom the directions are given. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetted was the instigation and nothing else, for it is humanly impossible for any tribunal to decide exactly how much the instigation actually weighed in the mind of the person abetted. Abetment necessarily means some active suggestion or support to the commission of the offence.

Since all the three petitioners before this Court are alleged to have visited the house of the parents of Harwinder Kaur of Jalandhar twice over, once for seeing and approving the bride and again at the time of marriage on 9th December, 1984, and are also alleged to have received stridhan on behalf of the bridegroom Satnam Singh Bajwa, knowing fully well that his first legally wedded wife Parkash Kaur was still alive and Satnam Singh Bajwa aforesaid had failed to divorce every, the summoning order passed against them by the learned Magistrate is in ever way legal and there is no legally sustainable ground to quash it. Dismissed.