AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Guman Mal Lodha, J.—17 accused petitioners have filed this application for quashing the proceeding against them. Their prayer is as under:
It is therefore prayed that the petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. may kindly be accepted and the order of the learned trial court dated 11-3-1966 may kindly be quashed.
On 11th March, 1986 the Magistrate No. 13 of Jaipur City considered the complaint by police filed u/s 186, Cr. P.C. which was sent for investigation u/s 156(2), Cr. P.C. and also looked into the statement of l6l Cr. P.C. He then passed the following order:
tkap fjiskZV ,oa 161] lh- vkj- ih- lh- ds c;kuks ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds f[kykQ prima facie eqdnek cuuk ik;k tkrk gS pwfd lHkh xokgku us bLrxkls ds rF;ks dh rkbZr dh gS A vr% vfHk;qDr ua- 1 oklqnso ds f[kykQ 494] vkbZ-ih-lh- es izlaKku fy;k tkrk gS AvkSj ''ks"k eqyfte Jherh ujs''kh] gfj''k pUn ] Jherh rkjk nsoh] vfuy dqekj] lqHkk"k xqykVh] Jherh ljyk ] y{e.k nkl ] Jherh teuh ] txuyky] Jherh eksjuh] jsk''kuyky] Jherh jktw] fouksn dqekj] JheRkh bUnq] ijekuUn ,oa Jherh pUnzh ds f[kykQ /kkjk 494@107@114] vkbZ-ih-lh- es izlaKku fy;k tkrk gS A
izdj.k ntZ jftLVj gks x;k ,oa tckc lwph ,oa ryckuk is''k gksus ij vfHk;qDrx.k leLr tfj;s t-ok- 500@& 500@& ls ryc fd;k tkos A i=koyh rych vfHk;qDr es fnukad 4&4&1986 dh is''k gks A^^
The above order is being challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that looking at the death the entire evidence it was pointed out that the entire evidence read as a whole consists of persons who have named only three persons Vasdev Arora, Smt. Nareshi and Vinod Kumar as participate in the marriage or abating the participation of accused in the marriage. In this connection the statement of the only eye witness Sardar Kalyan Singh who acted as priest in the marriage which was performed was read over as a whole both by Mr. Gupta appearing for the non-petitioner and Mr. Surana.
After reading the statement as a whole it was conceded by Mr. Gupta that this witness is the only witness who witnessed the marriage has named only three persons the above named three persons and none else.
However, Mr. Gupta submitted that even though this witness has not involved other persons, yet in the very nature of thing other persons must have participated because there is likelihood of (Kanyadan) by the father and mother of the daughter and the parents of the husband are bound to attend the marriage.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the non-petitioner complainant, I am of the opinion that it is an appropriate case where involving 17 accused for facing the trial u/s 494 read with Section 107 and 114 is gross abuse of process of court.
It is common ground that there is not an iota of evidence to show that except the above three persons any of the other 14 persons were in any way concerned with this marriage either at the time when the marriage was conducted or before or after it. There is no evidence even to show that after the marriage these persons participated in any function of marriage or in any way helped or abated the marriage.
It is true that parents are usually expected to attend the marriage but it is equally true that parents conscious of illegality of the marriage may refuse to be there. Parents may otherwise also refuse to bring second wife when there is first wife. These are all under the rhyme of conjecture in which a judicial court cannot travel.
I am convinced that the present one is a case where admittedly there is no evidence to involve any other petitioners except Vasdev Arora, Smt. Nareshi and Vinod Kumar.
Consequently, the proceedings and taking cognizance of the case against all the other petitioners are quashed.
The result of the above discussion is that application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. is accepted. Now Vasdev Arora, Smt. Nareshi and Vinod Kumar could face the charge for which cognizance has been taken and for all other petitioners the taking of cognizance and proceedings which have been started by the impugned order are quashed.