Mamta Rani vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Ram Krishna Gautam, J

This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicant, Smt. Mamta Rani, with a prayer for quashing of entire further proceeding, pursuant to summoning order, dated 7.2.2014, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, District Bulandshahr, in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2014, Mukesh vs. Mamta and others, under Section 494 of IPC, Police Station-B.B. Nagar, District-Bulandshahr, as well as order, dated 31.8.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, District Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision No.456 of 2017, Smt. Mamta Rani vs. State of U.P. and others.

Learned counsel for applicants argued that it was a false and malicious prosecution, under misuse and mis-exercise of process of law. There was admitted fact of marriage of Smt. Mamta Rani with Mukesh, Opposite party no.2, but this marriage was dissolved, then, second marriage was performed by her with Subhash Singh. No offence was ever committed, but learned Magistrate failed to appreciate it and the learned court of revision, wherein, this fact was raised, also, failed to appreciate it. Hence, this proceeding, for avoiding abuse of process of law and for ensuring ends of justice, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.

Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.

From very perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that it was filed by Mukesh against Smt. Mamta and his second husband, Subhash Singh, for offences, punishable, under Sections-93, 418 and 494 of IPC, with this contention that Mamata Rani was married with complainant on 11.12.1993, as per Hindu Rituals. A suit for dissolution of marriage, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed and this was decreed on 29.3.2008, but, knowing this fact that the said suit is pending and marriage is still in persistence, accused persons got married on 15.1.2008, which was an offence of bigamy. Hence, this complaint. Magistrate, enquired, by recording statement of complainant, under Section 200 and his witness, Udayvir Singh, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., wherein, it was specifically stated that Mamta, while, being legally wedded wife of Mukesh, remarried with Subhash Singh on 15.1.2008, when first marriage was in existence, hence, on the basis of above facts and evidence, impugned summoning order was passed. It was well within law and was passed on the basis of evidence, collected by the Magistrate, during his enquiry.

Argument that marriage was dis-solved is not tenable because the marriage was dis-solved, by way of a decree, which is on record, and is being pressed by learned counsel for applicant, on 29.3.2008, whereas, second marriage is said to have been performed on 15.1.2008, i.e., prior to dissolution of first marriage, and as such, there was no mis-use of process of law. As per admitted position, first marriage was in existence and it was dis-solved on 29.3.2018 and before this dissolution, second marriage of Mamta was performed with Subhash Singh on 15.1.20018, hence, in view of this, impugned summoning order was rightly passed, in accordance with provisions of law.

Revisional court has rightly dismissed revision on the ground that there was sufficient ground for passing impugned summoning order and as such it does not require interference by revisional court.

Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon of factual aspect because the same is a question, to be gone into, during course of trial, by the Trial court.

Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent judgment, in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again yet another judgment, in the case of Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court, in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings".

Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, could quash the proceedings, but, there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not".Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.

In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.