The essential elements to prove the marriage and the offence under Section 494 IPC must be present for the complaint to be sustainable.

Augustine George Masih, J.

1. The present petition is for quashing of the complaint dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure P-l) and for quashing/setting aside the summoning order dated 26.9.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dera Bassi (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Sections 406,498-A and 494 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the basic ingredients of the provisions for which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial by the trial Court, do not find mention in the complaint against her.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there arc no allegations against the petitioner in the complaint or in the statement made by the complainant before the trial Court which would constitute any of the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC as everywhere it is mentioned that the said acts were committed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the complaint. The petitioner is accused No. 4 in the complaint. His further contention is that the allegation, if any, against the petitioner is that the petitioner and accused No. 1, namely, Gurpreet Singh, had contracted a second marriage and, therefore, the petitioner committed an offence of bigamy which would be an offence under Section 494 IPC and, therefore, she should be summoned, tried and thereafter punished. The basic ingredients with regard to the second marriage having taken place between Gurpreet Singh-accused No. 1 and petitioner-accused No. 4 has neither been pleaded in the complaint nor in the statement made by the complainant before the trial Court. He contends that in the complaint, neither the date of the marriage, the manner nor the law under which it was performed, have been mentioned. It has even not been mentioned as to who were the persons present at the time of solemnization of such marriage. The ceremonies essential for a marriage to be in existence, have not been even referred to in the complaint or in the statement madeby the complainant before the trial Court. He, therefore, on this basis, prays for quashing of the complaint dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 26.9.2008 (Annexure P-2).

3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it has been specifically stated in para 10 of the complaint that the petitioner, who is accused No. 4, is working in the office of accused No. 1 Gurpreet Singh (husband of the complainant) and since they were having illicit relations, they secretly performed marriage with each other. Out of the loins of accused No. 1, the petitioner (accused No. 4) gave birth to a female child on 15.6.2006 and an entry in that regard had been made in the office of the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Ludhiana on 30.6.2006 at Sr.No. 1488. Copy of the birth certificate has also been attached with the complaint. His further contention is that CW-1 Arjan Singh, Health Worker, Municipal Council, Ludhiana, has proved the birth certificate of the female child as Exhibit C- 1 in which, in the column of parents, names of accused No. 1- Gurpreet Singh and accused No. 4- Simranjit Kaur @ Seema find mention. His further contention is that CW-2 Head Constable- Naresh Kumar, had proved the copy of FIR No. 151, dated 7.12.2007, which was got registered by the complainant against the accused wherein allegations with regard to the performance of second marriage, have been levelled. He, on the basis of these submissions, submits that the complainant while appearing as CW- 3, has also reiterated the position as has been projected in the complaint before the trial Court. In her statement ( Annexure P-3), he further refers to the statement and submits that the year of marriage i.e. 2005 has been mentioned in the complaint and on this basis, he submits that the offence against the accused-petitioner is clearly made out under Section 494 IPC. He relies upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AI