The sufficiency of evidence to prove the factum of solemnisation of the second marriage and the circumstances warranting the invocation of inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER

Harphul Singh Brar, J. -The petitioner wants me in this case to set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the factum of solemnisation of second marriage of Bhola Singh respondent with one Pappi. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, vide his judgment, dated December 13, 1986 had dismissed the complaint of the petitioner by holding that the complainant had failed to produce any evidence so as to frame charges against the accused under sections 494/109, Indian Penal Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had consequently discharged the accused.

2. Revision against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate filed by the petitioner also failed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below which could compel me to take action under the inherent powers of this Court, under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Courts have held as a matter of fact that the complainant had failed to prove the second marriage of Bhola Singh with one Pappi. The Courts below have rightly held that Nanak Singh witness who is alleged to have performed the second marriage could not be believed because of his statement that Natha Singh took him for performing the ceremony of Anand Karaj of his daughter is not sufficient, because the name of the daughter was required to be mentioned and so also with whom she was married was required to be given amongst other infirmities in his statement. Even the identification of Pappi having been married with Bhola Singh is not established by the statements of Ranjit Singh and Norang Singh. Both the witnesses categorically admitted in their cross-examination that the girl who was married with Bhola Singh was wearing veil (parda) throughout the ceremony and that her face was covered with veil which clearly proved that both these witnesses did not actually see the girl during the alleged ceremony of marriage.

4. Nothing has been pointed out to me which could show as to whether there is any misreading of evidence or misconstruing of any document on the file or there is any other circumstance in which inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, could be invoked.

5. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.