S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1675/09
SMT. SHEELA V. NAVRATAN @ RATAN PANWAR & STATE.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 11/11/2009
HON'BLE MR. C. M. TOTLA, J.
Mr. Bhrat Devasi, for Petitioner.
Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges cognizance
and registration of the case vide Magisterial order dated 24.2.06 for
offences of Sections 494, 406 and 120B IPC which order upheld by
revisional Court vide judgment dated 28.7.09.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that offence of S.494 IPC
is registered but no evidence of marriage much less evidence of necessary
ceremonies. Argued that alleged second marriage is said to have taken
place on 24.6.04 when complainant’s father was present, still complaint
lodged after about 16 months in October, 05. Vehemently submitted that
petitioner initiated criminal proceedings for bigamy against complainant in
July, 02 and as a counter to that case, these proceedings are initiated.
Considering arguments, perused order of the learned courts below.
A perusal of the orders of the learned Magistrate and also learned
Sessions Judge discloses that respondent submitted a complaint before
Magisterial court and learned Magistrate proceeding under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C., in addition to complainant, examined three witnessesand
then has taken cognizance for the offence of Sections 494, 406 and 120B
IPC. In order of revisional Court also, is detailed mentioning of what the
witnesses stated in course of inquiry, including of “saptpadi”. It seems
that proceedings are very early stage and petitioner shall be having
opportunity to raise objections whatever at the stage of framing of charge,
so refraining from mentioning made or analyzing said facts, is not
desirable.
In above view of the matter, cognizance order cannot be said to be
without any basis or prima facie without material.
The petition is not entertainable. The same is dismissed.
(C. M. TOTLA), J.