Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
Mohinder Singh, Appellant
Versus
Gulwant Singh and others, Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 794 with 795 of 1991 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) Nos. 2810 with 2784 of 1991), D/-17-12-1991.
WITH
Mohinder Singh, Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Pal and others, Respondents.
Held: The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage docs not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. Vide Davila Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and another, 1961 (1) S.C.R. 1 and Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan. 1962 (2) S.C.C. 297.
In the present case, the High Court appears to have exceeded the scope of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code and has gone into the question of sufficiency of evidence for conviction of the offence of bigamy: Further, in view of the admission made by the learned counsel for the respondents admitting before us the marriage of Darshan Singh with Mohinder Pal, the conclusion arrived at by the Court in the impugned order that the complaint does not contain any allegation of the performance of the marriage of Mohinder Pal with Darshan cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. (Paras 9 & 10)
JUDGMENT
Leave granted in both cases.
2. These two appeals arise out of a common order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. M.P. Nos. 3434M/91 and 3436-M/91 dated 17-5-91 whereby the High Court allowed these two petitions filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and quashed the complaint filed by the appellant herein and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereon.
3. The appellant who is the brother of Jagjit Kaur filed a complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Jullunder alleging that while the matrimonial tie between Darshan Singh and his sister Jagjit Kaur is still subsisting, Darshan Singh performed a second marriage with Mohinder Pal and the respondents in both the appeals abetted and assisted the second marriage.
4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took the statements of the complainant and three other witnesses including Jagjit Kaur under S. 202 of the Code. Of the witnesses examined, apart from the complainant and Jagjit Kaur, one was to prove the first marriage and the other was to prove the second marriage of Darshan Singh with Mohinder Pal. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on being prima facie satisfied that the offence of bigamy punishable under Ss. 494 and 494 read with S. 109, 1. P. C. is made out, issued process by his order dated 14-2-91 to all the eight accused arrayed in the complaint of whom seven are the respondents herein barring Darshan Singh (A-1) who was not a party in the proceedings initiated under S. 482, Cr. P.C., and directed all the accused to appear before him on 20-3-91.
5. All the respondents/accused herein, without appearing before the CJM approached the High Court by filing a petition under S. 482 of the Code praying to quash the proceedings as against them. It may be noted here that in Criminal Appeal No. 794 of 1991 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 2810/91), the respondents before the High Court were accused Nos. 2 to 5. In Criminal Appeal No. 795 of 1991 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2784/91), the respondents were accused Nos. 6 to 8, namely Mohinder Pal and her parents. The High Court for the reasons given in itsimpugned order finally concluded as follows:
"Since there is no allegation of performance of lavans in the presence of Sri Guru Grant Sahib, amidst the chanting of hymns composed by Sri Guru Ram Dass Ji, the impugned complaint does not contain any allegation of the performance of the first marriage of Jagjit Kaur with Darshan Singh and of the second marriage of Mohinder Pal with Darshan Singh. The impugned complaint, thus, does not show the commission of the offence under S. 494, I.P.C."
6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended that the marriage of Darshan Singh with Jaggit Kaur is a legally valid one and that Darshan Singh, while his marital tie with Jagjit Kaur is united and still validly subsisting, has performed the second marriage with Mohinder Pal and thereby Darshan Singh has committed the offence of bigamy. In proof of the second marriage of Darshan Singh with Mohinder Pal, he heavily relied upon the document Exh. PW-2/ 1.
7. Leaarned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while fairly admitting the marriage between Darshan Singh and Mohinder Pal has denied only the marriage of Darshan Singh with Jagjit Kaur and added that he is not challenging the validity of the marriage of Darshan Singh with Mohinder Pal. Further, he has stated that it is true that an engagement did take place on 31-8-82 as regards the marriage proposal of Darshan Singh with Jagjit Kaur but no marriage was solemnised as per the Sikh rites in pursuance of the said engagement since Jagjit Kaur had left India for England. According to him, Jagjit Kaur has not mentioned the alleged fact of her marriage in her passport and that this very fact indicates that no marriage of Jagjit Kaur with Darshan Singh was solemnised.
8. Both the learned Counsel have cited certain dec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
