Back
2013 Supreme(All) 1290
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bharat Bhushan, J.
Ramesh Chandra -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 320 of 2007
Decided On : 07-05-2013
For the Petitioner: D.R. Choudhary,S.K.Tripathi
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
A judgment obtained by fraud is not valid in the eyes of the law, and fraud vitiates all judicial acts.
Headnote:
Fraud - Criminal Revision - IPC 498-A/494, Dowry Prohibition Act 3/4 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal revision against the conviction of the appellant under IPC Sections 498-A/494 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3/4. The appellant had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree, remarried, and was subsequently convicted for bigamy and cruelty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ex-parte divorce decree was obtained through fraud, rendering it invalid. The appellant's second marriage was based on the fraudulent decree, and therefore, the argument of non-existence of the first marriage on the date of the second marriage was not accepted.
Issues: The key issues included the validity of the ex-parte divorce decree, the appellant's second marriage, and the applicability of the judgments in similar cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a judgment obtained by fraud is not valid in the eyes of the law. It cited legal principles stating that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that judgments obtained by playing fraud on the court are null and void.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
This criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 11.1.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2006 (Ramesh Chandra and others Vs State of UP) arising out of Criminal Case No. 1035 of 2005 (Case Crime No. 52 of 1990, State Vs Ramesh Chandra and others) under Sections 498-A/494 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut convicting the appellant and other co accused persons was partly allowed by acquitting the appellants namely Ramesh Chandra, Smt Ramkali, Smt Rajesh and Smt Mundro under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and further the appellant Ramesh Chandra was convicted under Section 494 IPC and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist initially solemnised marriage with the complainant Smt Ramo Devi on 8.5.1984. The revisionist secured ex-parte decree of divorce on 6.1.1988 from the Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana. After the divorce the revisionist Ramesh Chandra solemnised another marriage under Special Marriage Act with Madhubala. Subsequent to this marriage, the first wife Smt Ramo Devi moved the Ludhiana court for cancellation of the ex-parte decree of divorce on 22.8.1989 which was allowed and ex-parte decree of divorce was set aside on 16.5.1992 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana.
3. The first wife Ramo Devi lodged an FIR for cruelty on non fulfilment of dowry demands and also for bigamy on 16.5.1992. Trial Court vide order dated 30.11.1994 passed by IXth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut convicted the revisionist Ramesh Chandra under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. He was also convicted and sentenced under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act for six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation. The revisionist was also convicted and sentenced under Section 494 IPC for two years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. The other co accused persons namely Smt Rajesh, Smt Mundaro and Smt Ramkali were also convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A IPC ¾ D.P. Act read with Section 34 of IPC for varying degree of imprisonments and also fine in all sections with default stipulations.
4. Against this order, the revisionist and other co accused preferred criminal appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Meerut and the appellate court set aside the judgement and order dated 30.11.1994 passed by IXth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and remanded the matter back.
5. Thereafter, the matter was again tried and the revisionist along with other co accused were convicted and sentenced vide order dated 17.2.2006 passed by Special CJM, Meerut. The revisionist and other co accused preferred an appeal against this order in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut which was partly allowed. All the appellants were acquitted under Sections 498-A IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act but the revisionist Ramesh Chandra was convicted under Section 494 IPC and sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. Feeling aggrieved, the instant criminal revision has been preferred.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that on the date when the second marriage took place i.e. 22.6.1989, the ex-parte decree of divorce dated 6.1.1988 was subsisting. Even the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was moved by complainant on 22.8.1989 i.e. after the date of second marriage and as a matter of fact, ex-parte decree was set aside on 16.5.1992.
7. In support of this contention, counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Gopal Divedi Vs Prabha Divedi, 2004 SCC (Cri)
