The question of womanhood of the complainant-wife is not necessary and relevant for criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - In this criminal revision, the petitioners have challenged three orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, i.e. order dated 2.9.2003 (Annexure P-17), vide which the application filed by petitioner No. 1 (husband) for directing respondent No. 2 (wife) to get her medically examined from the Medical Board of Doctors of PGI, Chandigarh, has been dismissed; order dated 2.9.2003 (Annexure P-18), vide which the application of the petitioners for discharging them from the charges framed againt them, has been dismissed and the order dated 15.4.2002 (Annexure P-13), vide which charge has been framed againt the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2 - Harpreet Kaur on 18.2.2001. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the natural parents of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the brother and sister of petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, the marrige between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 could not be consummated as respondent No. 2 was not fit to lead a normal married life. Petitioner No. 1 alleged that the respondent-wife is not a woman and actually she is an eunuch and a fraud was played with him. He further alleged that after ten days of the marriage, respondent No. 2 left his house with all her clothes and jewellery. Thereupon, he filled a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the said petition was withdrawn. As a counter blast to the said petition, respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 237 dated 14.7.2001 against the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala. It is further averred in the petition that after withdrawal of the petition under Section 9 of the Act, petitioner No. 1 filed a petition for nullity of the marriage under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that at the time of marriage, a fraud was played as respondent No. 2 is an eunch and she is not a woman. The said petition is pending in the Court of District Judge, Ambala. The petitioners also filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in this Court for quashing of the aforesaid FIR No. 237 dated 14.7.2001. During the pendency of the said petition before this Court, the challan was filed againt the petitioners and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala framed the charge against the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 406 Indian Penal Code on 15.4.2002 (Annexure P-13). Subsequently, the quashing petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court on 14.1.2003 while observing as under :-

"The matrimonial troubles between husband and wife, differences between them, difficulties that they may experience in consummating marriage, unfitness of either party to consummate the marrige are all valid grounds to be set up in defence at the trial but are not good grounds to challenge the F.I.R. or seeking its quashment. The above grounds can always be pleaded by the accused in defence but to investigate them in a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be grossly unjust to the complainant."

3. It is submitted here that the order of charge and framing of the charge- sheet dated 15.4.2002 was never challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision petition before the Sessions Judge or in this Court within the prescribed period of limitation. However, on 21.3.2003, petitioner No. 1 filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for medical examination of the respondent-wife from the Medical Board of Doctors of PGI, Chandigarh. After come time, on 29.7.2003, petitioners filed another application for acquitting them from the charges framed against them and to prosecute the complainant and her witnesses for malicious prosecution. Both these applications were heard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same were dismissed vide or