Crl.Misc.No.M- 13990 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 13990 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Santro Devi ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh AAG, Haryana. Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No.158/05 dated 2.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Sections 494 read with Section 109 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and the summoning order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P-6). Complainant-respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner and others alleging therein that he had got Crl.Misc.No.M- 13990 of 2010 (O&M) 2 married to the petitioner on 15.1.1996. However, no child was born to them. The petitioner and the complainant could not lead a happy married life and consequently, the petitioner left the matrimonial home. The petitioner had filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2000. Appeal filed by the complainant against the said judgment and decree was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.4.2003 in FAO No.152-M of 2000. The petitioner had lodged FIR No.133 under Sections 323, 406, 498-A/ 506 read with Section 34 IPC against respondent No.2 and others. The petitioner in connivance with other accused had performed marriage with Kartara. Hence, the complaint was filed by respondent No.2 under Sections 494/ 109/ 506 IPC. Vide order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P-6), the trial Court summoned the accused to face trial under Sections 494/ 109 IPC. Matia, Mohinder Singh, Murti Devi, Kamla Devi, Suresh Kumar and Hoshiar Singh filed CRM No.18194-M of 2007 seeking quashing of the complaint in question and the summoning order. The said petition was allowed and the complaint along with all the consequential proceedings against the said petitioners was quashed vide order dated 7.10.2009. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. In the said petition following points for determination were numerated by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the respondent has refused or neglected to keep and maintain the petitioner as his legally wedded Crl.Misc.No.M- 13990 of 2010 (O&M) 3 wife? 2. Whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself? 3. Whether the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. 4. Whether the petitioner has performed her second marriage ? If so, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance from the respondent?” While dealing with point as to whether the petitioner had performed second marriage, it was held as under:- “In these circumstances, I hold to conclude that the petitioner has not celebrated second marriage with any person according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner herself left her matrimonial home is not tenable as initially leaving the house by the petitioner was just or not, even if the wife refused to reside with husband. Such refuses cannot deprive the wife from getting maintenance. When it is found that the wife is unable to maintain herself and husband refused to maintain her despite sufficient means, then the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.” Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., both the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 preferred revision petitions and vide order dated 22.7.2004 both the revision petitions were dismissed. It was held that the Magistrate had rightly reached the conclusion that respondent No.2 had failed to Crl.Misc.No.M- 13990 of 2010 (O&M) 4 prove that the petitioner had contracted second marriage. Since a finding has already come to the effect that the petitioner had not performed second marriage in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the complaint qua the petitioners Mathia and others was quashed by this Court in CRM No.18194-M of 2007 vide order dated 7.10.2009. On the same analogy, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner also. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No.158/05 dated 2.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Sections 494 read with Section 109 and 506 IPC, the summoning order dated 17.1.2007 (Annexure P-6) and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 25, 2011 anita