CRM No.14162-M of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No.14162-M of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Ajit ......Petitioner Versus Satish and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing the order dated 18.10.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rewari vide which the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and further judgment dated 7.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide which the revision against the above order filed by the petitioner was partly allowed. The case of the complainant, in brief, as noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in para No.2 of its judgment reads as under:- “ In nutshell, the facts mentioned in the complaint are that the marriage of complainant Ajit was solemnized with accused no.3 Smt. Chalti, whereas his CRM No.14162-M of 2009 (O&M) 2 brothers Satbir and Meer Singh got married with Smt. Kabul and Smt. Prem respectively on 08.07.1992 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Accused no.3 is the legally weeded wife of the complainant, whereas accused no.4 is the legally wedded wife of his brother Satbir. Accused no.3 lived with the complainant in the matrimonial home at Bawal upto 07.05.1998. The parents of the accused nos.3 and 4 are greedy persons. They took the accused nos.3 and 4 on 7.5.1998 from the matrimonial home along with the cash and other articles. Thereafter, the complainant visited at the parental home of accused no.3 several times, but the accused no.3 refused to accompany him. A panchayat was also convened but the parents of the accused nos.3 and 4 refused to send them. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was decreed in his favour on 24.12.2003. Now the complainant has come to know that accused nos.3 and 4 have performed their second marriage illegally without getting their first marriage dissolved by any competent court of law. All the accused have committed bigamy in- collusion with each other and are liable to be punished.” Section 494 IPC reads as under:- “ Marrying again during lifetime of husband CRM No.14162-M of 2009 (O&M) 3 or wife.- Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Exception- This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.” The petitioner had filed the complaint alleging that his marriage was solemnized with respondent No.3 Chalti and the marriage of his brother Satbir was solemnized with respondent No.4 Kabul. Chalti and Kabul, however, left the complainant and his brother and they had performed second marriage without getting a CRM No.14162-M of 2009 (O&M) 4 divorce from the petitioner and his brother. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered that Chalti and Kabul be summoned to face the trial under Section 494 IPC. So far as other accused are concerned, they have rightly not been ordered to be summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as Chalti and Kabul had allegedly got re-married without getting divorce from their husbands and had, thus, performed their second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince me that the other accused apart from respondents No.3 and 4 were also liable to be summoned as accused. No ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) April 19, 2010 JUDGE anita