To attract criminal liability under Section 494 IPC against family members, there must be evidence of an overt act or omission in facilitating the second marriage; mere knowledge of the bigamous marriage is insufficient for summoning.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Jain, J.

1. The instant application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated 3.3.2003 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Etawah alongwith entire proceeding of the case no.2355 of 2007 (Shakuntala Devi vs. Ram Pratap Singh and others) under Section 494,498A,323,504,506 IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

Facts of the Case

2. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that the complainant/respondent No.2, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, submitted an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah on 04.4.1997, alleging that her marriage was solemnized with accused Ram Pratap Singh on 07.12.1991 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, her father, according to his financial capacity, gave in dowry articles including a television, almirah, fan, sofa set, utensils, clock, bicycle, radio, jewellery, clothes and cash amounting to Rs.15,000/-. It was alleged that articles amounting to Rs.70,000/- were given in the marriage.

3. It was further alleged that despite the aforesaid dowry, the accused persons, namely, Ram Pratap Singh (husband), Phoolan Devi @ Bhurani (mother-in-law), Dashrath Singh (father-in-law) and Vimla (sister-in-law), were dissatisfied and persistently subjected the complainant to cruelty by assaulting, abusing and threatening her. They also allegedly attempted to kill her and demanded an additional dowry consisting of a scooter and Rs.5,000/- in cash. As the said demand remained unfulfilled, the complainant was compelled to leave her matrimonial home in order to save her life.

4. The complainant further alleged that on 28.03.1997, she, along with her elder sister, visited her matrimonial home in an attempt to resume cohabitation. However, she was again assaulted and abused by the accused persons. Her elder sister, who intervened to rescue her, was also assaulted and abused. Upon hearing their cries for help, the neighbours gathered at the spot. During the said incident, accused Ram Pratap Singh allegedly disclosed that he had solemnized a second marriage.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an FIR being Case Crime No.81 of 1997 was registered on 04.04.1997 at 5:25 p.m. under Sections 494, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC as well as Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused persons.

6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report No. 11/1997 which was registered as FR No. 44/98 on 08.9.1998 and notices were issued to the complainant. Aggrieved by the final report, the complainant filed a protest petition on 18.1.1999 contending that the investigation had not been conducted fairly and impartially. It was specifically asserted that accused Ram Pratap Singh had solemnized a second marriage with one Pinki, daughter of Sriram, resident of Village Uncha, District Auraiya. It was further alleged that the Investigating Officer had acted in collusion with the accused persons and, therefore, the final report No.11/1997 deserved to be rejected and the accused persons were liable to be summoned.

7. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, vide order dated 06.06.2000, registered the protest petition as a complaint case. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant Shakuntala under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses Saroj and Munni Devi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

8. In her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant Shakuntala substantially reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. She deposed that after her marriage, despite substantial dowry having been given, her husband and other family members were dissatisfied and started subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty while demanding an additional dowry of Rs.5,000/- and a scooter. She further stated that whenever her