-1- Criminal Revision No.574 of 1998. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.574 of 1998. Date of Decision: January 28, 2010. Sita Ram ...Petitioner VERSUS Smt. Roshni and another ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Arshwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kulbir Singh Dalal, Advocate, for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Sita Ram has challenged the judgment dated 23.5.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, whereby appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of conviction dated 1.5.1997 and the sentence order dated 2/5.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, -2- Criminal Revision No.574 of 1998. Hissar, convicting the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months, was dismissed except reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment from one and a half years to six months. Petitioner Sita Ram was convicted and sentenced by the Courts below, as mentioned above, in a private complaint filed by Smt. Roshni (respondent No.1) alleging therein that she was the legally wedded wife of petitioner Sita Ram and the petitioner had subjected her to cruelty on account of insufficiency of dowry. On account of this torture, Smt. Roshni had to leave her matrimonial home. All the dowry articles were retained by the petitioner while turning out Smt. Roshni from her matrimonial house. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As per averments in the complaint filed by Smt.Roshni, her marriage with the petitioner had taken place on 6.6.1971 whereas the instant complaint was filed by her on 18.2.1987 i.e after more than fifteen and a half years of the marriage, alleging cruelty at the hands of the petitioner on account of insufficiency of dowry. The complainant had filed Civil Suit No.7 dated 6.4.1990 against the petitioner and Saroj -3- Criminal Revision No.574 of 1998. seeking declaration to the effect that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner with the further relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from contracting second marriage with said Saroj. The said suit filed by Smt. Roshni was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hissar vide judgment dated 15.11.1996 (Annexure P-4 with this revision petition) by passing the following order:- “ After going through the file and the documents placed on the file, although no oral evidence is led by the plaintiff and even so no defence of defendant No.1 (i.e the petitioner) is also on the file, the plaintiff has not proved her marriage with defendant No.1 and the documents tendered by her counsel in evidence also have not been duly proved. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” Admittedly, no appeal was filed by Smt.Roshni against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed against her by the civil Court. This judgment of the Civil Court, which has attained finality, was produced by the petitioner before the -4- Criminal Revision No.574 of 1998. trial Court and was exhibited as D.A. The petitioner had also produced on record report (Exhibit D.B) of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan), whereby he had reported that as per the inquiry conducted by his department, complainant Smt. Roshni Devi daughter of Banwari Lal Bishnoi, resident of Sadalpur, District Hisar, was married with Subash son of Hari Singh, caste Bishnoi, resident of Sardargarhia, Police Station Bandra, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) and she was living as wife with him and a son had also born to her. It has, thus, been established on record that the complainant, before her alleged marriage with the petitioner, had already married one Subash. It is also worth mentioning here that while making her deposition in the trial Court, Smt.Roshni had stated that she had visited the house of the petitioner at the time of her marriage and had slept with him for one night as husband and wife. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that her marriage with the petitioner took place on 6.6.1971 . Out of the wedlock, one son was born and he died in April, 1981. Had the complainant been tortured by the petitioner on account of insufficiency of dowry, she would not have waited till 18.2.1987 to file the instant complaint. It has also come on record that the petitioner was being prosecuted under Section 494 of the Code at the instance of the complainant for having married again with one Saroj during the life time of Smt.Roshni. Under the circumstances, the complainant may or may not be the -5- Criminal Revision No.574 of 1998. legally wedded wife of the petitioner, but the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Code, for which offence he has been convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgments and the sentence orders are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. January 28, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE