IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. 13862-M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 12, 2010 KULWNDER SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. MS Gill, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.153 dated 6.8.2008 under Sections 417, 420, 494, 495, 496, 120-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Division No.8, Jalandhar (Annexure P-4), final report filed under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings. In brief, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are real brothers of Rajinder Kaur. The petitioners did not know that Rajinder Kaur got married and, while suppressing the factum of first marriage, got married for the second time on 13.7.2008, thereby Criminal Misc. No. 13862-M of 2009 2 committing the offences, as alleged in the FIR. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been living abroad and are not aware about the family affairs going on in India. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that sufficient evidence has been collected during investigation and it stands established that the petitioners knew about the first marriage of Rajinder Kaur. I have considered the issue. The allegations made in the FIR by Bhupinder Singh (complainant-respondent No.2) are that Rajinder Kaur got married to Sukhwinder Singh on 17.10.2007. The marriage was not dissolved at any point in time. The accused knew about the first marriage and yet did not object to the second marriage contracted by Rajinder Kaur on 13.7.2008 with the complainant. So far as culpability of the petitioners is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that during investigation Shamma Joshi and Subedar Ram Partap have given statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that Daljit Singh (petitioner No.2) used to visit the house of Rajinder Kaur while she was married to Sukhwinder Singh and, therefore, knew about the first marriage. Mere absence during the first marriage would not, per se, show the innocence of Daljit Singh (petitioner No.2). So far as Kulwinder Singh (petitioner No.1) is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn the attention of the Court towards evidence collected during investigation, which indicates Criminal Misc. No. 13862-M of 2009 3 that Kulwinder Singh visited India in the month of January, 2007 and left India in the month of February, 2007. During this period, the talk of marriage of Rajinder Kaur with Sukhwinder Singh was going on. Kulwinder Singh, under the circumstances, had full knowledge of the marriage of his real sister-Rajinder Kaur. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, statement of the petitioners by way of affidavit cannot be accepted to the effect that they did not know about the factum of first marriage of their real sister- Rajinder Kaur. Since it has been pointed out that incriminating material has been collected against the petitioners, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the facts cannot be said to be disproved. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. January 12, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?