Crl. Misc. No.M-17598 of 2011(O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-17598 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: November 15, 2011 Mool Chand & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. RP Verma, Advocate, for Y.D. Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.70, dated 13.05.2011, copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioners are accused of offences under Sections 363/366A/506 IPC registered at Police Station Ballabhgarh Sadar. The petitioners have also prayed for providing security to them. It is a case where petitioner No.1- Mool Chand concededly has performed second marriage unfortunately that too with the niece of his previous wife while the first marriage was in subsistence. He is also having an issue out of his first marriage. I am surprised to notice the audacity on the part of Crl. Misc. No.M-17598 of 2011(O&M) -2 - petitioner No.1, who while appearing before this Court has no compunction to brazenly admit this fact of his second marriage. Rather he pleads and projects that he has performed second marriage on the asking of his first wife. The first wife, who is present in the Court, however, counter him on this aspect rather in a violent and vehement manner. She has refuted the plea so raised by petitioner No.1. It appears that petitioner No.1 has no defence to offer and has come up with this theory that he performed this second marriage on the asking of his first wife. This plea besides being unacceptable in law also sounds absurd. No wife would ever agree to share her man with another lady. Petitioner No.1 while admitting these facts failed to appreciate that he could not have performed second marriage even in this manner and this is no marriage in the eyes of law. He would remain responsible by answering the same. During the course of arguments, it is submitted before me that petitioner-Mool Chand is maintaining both the ladies. What a plea? As if this is valid or legal justification for this bigamous relations and violation of law. The case of abduction as alleged in the FIR apparently would be made out considering the age of lady with whom petitioner No.1 had performed second marriage. During the hearing of the case, it can be made out that Mool Chand is not illiterate to be unaware of the consequences of his action. He admits to have studied upto high school level. Petitioner No.1 is well aware of law and norms of society. Ignorance of law otherwise also is no excuse. Petitioner No.1, thus, has no excuse to violate law. He has consciously taken this risk by violating the law. Not only that he can be seen to have Crl. Misc. No.M-17598 of 2011(O&M) -3 - violated the norms of the society and morality as well. It is rather detesting to notice that he has chosen to get married to niece of his legally wedded wife. Obviously, he would have had an opportunity to meet her because of this relationship of the lady with his wife. This will aggravate the gravity of his misconduct and that of the other family members conniving with him. Whatever may be the reason, the second marriage performed by Mool Chand cannot be justified under any circumstances whatsoever. It can be noticed and observed that second wife is not of marriageable age. As per the complaint lodged by the father of the second wife, she is 16 years old. Without realizing this aspect, this Court had stayed further proceedings. Thus, the investigation has not been conducted in this case. The result is that the serious violator of law has been able to show their thumbs to the law and has now come forward to offer justification of the second marriage. Such a submission on behalf of the petitioners can neither be heard nor be permitted to be raised. On 19.10.2011, my attention was invited to the ossification test of the girl with whom petitioner No.1 has performed second marriage. As per the ossification report, the girl was found to be of 18 years old. I am told that she is already on a family way. She perhaps does not realize that she is carrying in her womb an illegitimate child. The consequences are for everybody, including the society to see. This child is the outcome of the lust of this Mool Chand and perhaps of this immature lady. Petitioner No.1 has ruined the life of two ladies, one with whom he has performed the second marriage in an illegal manner and that of his first wife, who Crl. Misc. No.M-17598 of 2011(O&M) -4 - has a child from him. It is no defence that he is maintaining both the ladies. In my view, the case of abduction against the petitioners would be made out. The lady with whom he has performed second illegal marriage is found to be around 18 years of age when the ossification test was conducted on 2.6.2011. The marriage was performed on 5.1.2010. Thus, she was less than 18 years age on the date of marriage. In any case, all such issues have to be appreciated by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led before the Court. The petitioners as well as their representation are totally misconceived to plead before me to go into the merits of the case and to hold that no offence of abduction as alleged against the petitioners is made out. It would depend primarily on the age of girl on the date of second marriage. If it was found that she was not of marriageable age, the offences under Sections 363/366 etc. would certainly be made out. All other petitioners, who are closely related to petitioner No.1-Mool Chand, obviously, would be responsible as they must have participated in the marriage and have not come forward even to check this unholy alliance of petitioner No.1 with niece of his legally wedded wife. The submission made by petitioner- Mool Chand that he was made to perform his second marriage by his wife, is a clever way to explain this offence committed by him which is unacceptable and is rejected with contempt. It is an after thought and raised only to plead defence. The falsity of this submission can very well be made out from what has transpired before me. The girl with whom the second marriage is performed has disclosed in the Crl. Misc. No.M-17598 of 2011(O&M) -5 - open Court that her father had paid a sum of `10 lacs for this marriage. Why then would he complain of abduction of his minor daughter? It will be surprising to notice that the complainant-father is being accused of paying money to perform marriage with petitioner No.1(Mool Chand) which is a second marriage. It is not that he was stranger to Mool Chand. He was closely related to his wife, the second lady being the niece of the earlier wife. Thus, all these defences are after thought, misconceived and misplaced requiring outright rejection. There is no merits in the petition. All the petitioners have exposed themselves to the violations of law and must face the consequences. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. November 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE