Smt. Rajkumari v. Suchendra Sharma

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1704 of 2018 Smt. Rajkumari, W/o Suchendra Sharma, aged about at present 47 Years, By Occupation House Work, R/o Village Shivpur, Thana Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

Suchendra Sharma, S/o Late Maina Prasad Sharam, Aged About 49 Years, By Occupation- Agriculture Work. 2.

Lilawati, W/o Late Maina Prasad Sharma, Aged About 73 Years.

3.

Anita, W/o Suchendra Sharma, Aged About 43 Years. All By Occupation Agriculture Work, R/o Village Barbaspur, Thana Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For Respondents :

None.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 03/10/2018 1.

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2018, application for condonation of delay in filing the petition.

2.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 69 days in filing the petition is condoned. 3.

Also heard on application filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal. 4.

This petition is directed against order dated 15.03.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 1436/2015, wherein, the said court discharged all the three respondents for commission of offence under Section 494 & 120(B) of IPC.

5.

As per the petitioner, she was married with respondent No. 1Suchendra Sharma, but the said respondent married with respondent No. 3- Anita during existence of his marriage with the petitioner and the same is void and punishable under Section 494 of IPC. The other two respondents agreed to do the said illegal act and they have conspired for second marriage of respondent No. 1- Suchendra Sharma. 6.

To substantiate the charge, the petitioner examined Rajkumari (PW-1), Rudreshwar Prasad Dubey (PW-2) & Kameshwar Dubey (PW-3). Though all the three witnesses have deposed that respondent No.1- Suchendra Sharma performed second marriage, but they are unable to indicate the place of second marriage and from their version, it is clear that they were not present during ceremony of second marriage.

7.

As per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when such rites and ceremonies include the saptpadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

8.

In the present case, there is no evidence that respondent No. 1- Suchendra Sharma and respondent No. 3- Anita took seven steps before sacred fire, therefore, the evidence regarding marriage of respondent No. 1-Suchendra Sharma & respondent No. 3- Anita is not established by evidence. The trial court opined that cogent evidence is lacking, therefore, charges cannot be framed.

9.

Looking to the entire evidence, this Court has no reason to substitute contrary finding. It is not a fit case where all the respondents should be called for hearing again. Accordingly, application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected. 10.

Consequently, the petition stands dismissed at motion stage itself.

Sd/- (Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge Arun