RAVI S. DIAWON, J.

Misunderstanding another mans religion can lead to disastrous results. Religious are not meant to be played around with for personal gain. Such is case in the present writ petition before this Court.

2. The petitioner, Chandrapal, is a Hindu. His father-in-law instituted a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura that the petitioner be prosecuted under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The complaint against the petitioner was that he was a bigamous spouse. Thus, proceedings for prosecution of the petitioner were set in motion in Criminal Case No. 2990 of 1987: Keshav Dev. Chandrapal. Keshav Dev is the father-in-law. Chandrapal is the petitioner facing prosecution on the charge of bigamy.

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioner and his lather as an accomplice. The petitioner and his father have run to this Court by a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is, in effect, that Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act - 1955 is ultra vires, of the equality clause under the Constitution of India and his prosecution under Section 494 of the Code offe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document