Surajbai vs Smt. Mamata Bai

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—Present petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by III Addl. District Judge, Raisen in Criminal Revision No. 95/2012 affirming the order of Magistrate by which he has framed the u/s 494/109 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, placing reliance on Santi Deb Berma Vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi, and S. Nagalingam Vs. Sivagami, , submits that in present case neither in the private complaint nor in the evidence, fact of "saptapadi" has appeared hence ingredients of Section 494 of IPC are not completed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that case is not like that. On the basis of private criminal complaint and further after considering the evidence of Mamta Bai (PW-1), Harnarayan (PW-2) and Durjan Singh (PW-3) and after considering the cross examination on their testimonies at the stage of evidence before charge, trial Court has framed the charge according to provision of warrant trial for complaint cases. Hence fact of "saptapadi" neither can be appreciated nor can be finally decided at this stage. It is a matter of trial and shall be decided by the trial Court at the time of final judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submits that alleged second marriage was solemnized in District Hoshangabad where as trial is pending in District Raisen, Hence, placing reliance on Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, and S. Karan Singh Sodhi and Others Vs. Jatender Jeet Kour, , learned counsel submits that for want of territorial jurisdiction, this trial is bad in law and order of framing of charge should be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance in Urbhay Kumar @ Om Prakash and Others Vs. Smt. Hema Bai, submits that in impugned order this aspect has been rightly discussed and decided.

In present case, first wife has initiated the criminal case against husband, second wife and two other persons. In evidence, it has come on record that after alleged second marriage between the main co-accused and present petitioner, they are living together in Raisen District. Hence competence present Court for trial of the petitioner under Sections 494/109 of IPC cannot be ruled out.

Courts below have considered both the points in right perspective. Alleged offence can be tried at either of the place at Hoshangabad as well as in District Raisen.

Present petitioner is facing trial for abatement of second marriage of husband of the complainant. On merits, nothing much can be said about technicalities of the marriage at this stage by this Court. This is the matter of trial shall be decided by the trial Court at appropriate stage.

There appears no error in orders of courts below and it does not appear to be a case of abuse of process. Rather nullifying the orders of courts below, at this stage, in this matter, will certainly amount to abuse.

For want of merits, petition is dismissed.