Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 530 (ALL)

RAMESHWAR PRASAD v. STATE OF U P

2007-03-07

BARKAT ALI ZAIDI

body2007
BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J. Opposite Party No. 2-complainant filed a complaint under Section 494 read with Section 109, I. P. C. against her husband, present applicant on the allegation that she is the legally wedded wife of the accused Rameshwar Prasad and in her life time, without there being any lawful divorce, he has entered into a second marriage with Smt. Prabha Devi, daughter of Mathura Prasad, R/o village Gargayee Ahir, P. S. Gurusarai, District Jhansi. 2. In her support, the complainant examined herself and two other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C and thereafter, the Magistrate ordered for issuing process against the accused-applicant 3. A revision filed against the summoning order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11-9-2002. 4. It is against this order, that the applicant has come here under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 5. I have heard Sri Sudhir Shandilya, Advocate for applicant, Sri J. S. Parihar Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2 and Sri R. K. Maurya, Additional Government Advocate for the State. 6. The contention of the applicant is two fold : (i) That the revising Court in its order itself mentioned that in the marriage, Saptpadi Sanskar took place, was not fully proved from the evidence of the witnesses. (ii) That there was some difference of dates between the complainant and her witnesses with regard to the marriage. 7. The complainant and her witnesses in their statement have clearly stated that the marriage took place according to Hindu rites, therefore, it cannot be assumed at this stage that the marriage did not take place according to Hindu religion. The accused will have full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses at the Trial. This contention has, therefore, no force and is accordingly rejected. 8. As regards the second contention that it appears to be a mistake and can very well be reconciled at the trial. In this respect too, the accused will have full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses. 9. This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. .