Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1008 (HP)

NIRANJANA v. RANJIT SINGH

2009-11-09

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-The accused have filed this petition under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 27.2.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in case No. 31/02/06/03 framing charge under Sections 465, 467, 471 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant. 2. The facts according to accused in brief are that complainant got published matrimonial advertisement in Daily Tribune in July, 2002 indicating his age 39 years. In response to the advertisement, matrimonial as accused No. 1 and complainant met each other several times. It was agreed that marriage would be without dowry as both the parties were earning and self dependent. 3. It has been alleged that ring ceremony took place in November, 2002 and the marriage of accused No. 1 and complainant was solemnized on 08.02.2003. In between, the parties had enough time to enquire about the antecedents of each other before actual marriage. The date of birth of the accused No. 1 is 30.06.1965 and she was around 37 years when matrimonial talk between accused No. 1 and complainant started. 4. It has been alleged that soon after the marriage relations between accused No. 1 and complainant became bitter when complainant raised demand of dowry in the shape of furniture, cash etc. The accused No. 1 spent about one month with complainant under stress. The complainant used to give beatings to the accused No. 1 and insisted for bringing dowry from her parents. The accused No. 1 left the house of complainant on 09.03.2003 and a case under Section 498-A I.P.C. was registered against the complainant at the instance of accused No. 1. The complainant had filed divorce petition and ultimately learned District Judge granted mutual divorce to accused No. 1 and complainant on 21.02.2005. 5. The complainant with some ulterior motive filed a complaint against the accused alleging therein that accused in connivance with each other gave false date of birth of accused No. 1 as 07.07.1969 and also forged horoscope of accused No. 1. On these allegations learned Magistrate issued process to the accused, who contested the proceedings and ultimately learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge against the accused on 27.02.2008. In these circumstances, the accused have filed the present petition. On these allegations learned Magistrate issued process to the accused, who contested the proceedings and ultimately learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge against the accused on 27.02.2008. In these circumstances, the accused have filed the present petition. It has been submitted that on the basis of material on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in framing the charge against the accused, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned order and dismissing the complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition and has supported the impugned order. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard and perused the record. It has been alleged in the complaint that accused No. 2 and 3 in response to matrimonial advertisement issued by the complainant in the news paper had correspondence with complainant for the marriage of accused No. 1 who is daughter of accused no. 2 and sister of accused No. 3. The complainant has relied letters dated 27.07.2002 and 24.07.2002. It has been alleged that accused No. 2 had sent photo copy of horoscope of accused No. 1 alongwith letter dated 27.07.2002. The horoscope of accused No. 1 and complainant were got matched and thereafter ring ceremony and marriage was performed in between accused No. 1 and complainant. The accused No. 1 after marriage stayed with complainant for 3-4 days and on 09.03.2003 accused No. 1 left the company of the complainant without any reasonable cause. 7. The complainant after the withdrawal of accused No. 1 from his company made enquiries regarding the age of accused no. 1. The complainant came to know that accused, after reading matrimonial advertisement of complainant, created false horoscope of accused No. 1 by giving wrong date of birth of accused No. 1 to astrologer Nand Lal and got prepared forged horoscope dishonestly with a view to cause damage, injury to the complainant as well with intention to commit fraud upon the complainant. The actual date of birth of the accused No. 1 is 30.06.1965 and not 07.07.1969 as mentioned in the horoscope and supplied to complainant. It has been alleged that false horoscope was prepared with intent to commit fraud upon the complainant and that was used by accused while settling the matrimonial alliance of accused No. 1 with the complainant. 8. Ex. It has been alleged that false horoscope was prepared with intent to commit fraud upon the complainant and that was used by accused while settling the matrimonial alliance of accused No. 1 with the complainant. 8. Ex. CW-1/A is the matrimonial advertisement dated 20.07.2002 published in the Tribune in which the age of the complainant has been given 39 years. Ex. CW-1/B is the letter dated 27.07.2002 of Jagat Singh Bhandari written in response to matrimonial advertisement wherein he has given the age of his daughter 33 years showing her to be born in the year 1969. Ex. CW-1/C is the letter dated 24.07.2002 of Vidya Bhandari in response to matrimonial advertisement dated 20.07.2002 wherein she has given the particulars of her younger sister showing her to be 33 years of age. Ex. CW-1/D is the horoscope prepared by Pandit in which date of birth has been given 07.07.1969. Ex. CW-1/F is the certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary showing the year of birth of Niranjana 1965. Ex. D-1 judgment dated 21.2.2005 indicates dissolution of marriage by District Judge, Shimla whereas Ex. D-2 is the decree dated 21.2.2005 dissolving the marriage of Ranjit Singh Jalta and Niranjana. 9. CW-3 Ranjit Singh Jalta has proved advertisement Ex. CW-1/A and the letter Ex. CW-1/B which was written by Jagat Singh Bhandari and Ex. CW-1/C which was written to him by Vidya Bahandari. He has also stated that copy of horoscope which was supplied to him is mark ‘X’. The horoscope was matched vide Ex. CW-1/E. The age certificate of Niranjana is Ex. CW-1/F. He has stated that date of birth of Niranjana is 30.06.1965 but in the horoscope which was supplied to him and in the letters the date of birth of Niranjana was shown 07.07.1969, his marriage was settled as per date of birth dated 07.07.1969 shown in the horoscope of accused No. 1 and at that time Niranjana and Vidya were present. The marriage could not have been settled as per date of birth 30.06.1965. He has suffered a loss of Rs. 4-5 lacs due to marriage. He has also stated on the basis of forged documents he was got married with Nranjana on 8.02.2003. 10. CW-2 Nand Lal has stated that in July, 2002 accused came to him for preparing horoscope of accused No. 1, he is Jyotishaacharya. He has suffered a loss of Rs. 4-5 lacs due to marriage. He has also stated on the basis of forged documents he was got married with Nranjana on 8.02.2003. 10. CW-2 Nand Lal has stated that in July, 2002 accused came to him for preparing horoscope of accused No. 1, he is Jyotishaacharya. The accused No. 1 gave her date of birth 07.07.1969 and birth time 3:30 a.m. On this information horoscope Ex. CW-1/D was prepared by him which was prepared on the basis of information given by the accused. Thereafter, all the three accused came to him in August and asked him to match the horoscope of complainant and accused No. 1. He matched the horoscope vide Ex. CW-1/D and prepared Lagnotri Ex. CW-1/A. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complainant has projected the case that petitioners had shown petitioner No. 1 about 4 years younger in age in comparison to actual date of birth of petitioner No. 1. It has also been submitted that as per advertisement Ex. CW-1/A on 20.07.2002 the complainant had shown his age 39 years. The petitioner even as per the case of the complainant was about 37 years of age when the matrimonial advertisement was got published by the complainant on 20.07.2002. In short the submission is that at the time of matrimonial advertisement the complainant was 39 years and petitioner No. 1 was 37 years and accused No. 1 was younger to complainant on the date of advertisement and this has not affected the complainant in any manner. 12. The mater is not so simple as has been projected by the learned counsel for the accused. The case of the complainant is that actual date of birth of accused No. 1 is 30.06.1965. All the accused had given date of birth of accused No. 1 to CW-2 as 07.07.1969. CW-2 had prepared horoscope Ex. CW-1/D on the basis of date of birth 07.07.1969. The case of the complainant is that in order to defraud the complainant the accused got prepared false document in the shape of Ex. CW-1/D and used Ex. CW-1/D to settle matrimonial alliance with the complainant. In fact, the accused No. 1 and the complainant were got married but soon thereafter their marriage was broken. The case of the complainant is that in order to defraud the complainant the accused got prepared false document in the shape of Ex. CW-1/D and used Ex. CW-1/D to settle matrimonial alliance with the complainant. In fact, the accused No. 1 and the complainant were got married but soon thereafter their marriage was broken. The case of the complainant is that on the basis of date of birth of accused No. 1 as 30.06.1965, the marriage between the accused No. 1 and complainant was not possible. In Ex. CW-1/B letter dated 27.07.2002 the accused no. 2 has given the age of his daughter 33 years and her year of birth 1969, similar is the position of Ex. CW-1/C dated 24.07.2002 which was written by accused no. 3 wherein she has given age of her sister 33 years. In Ex. CW-1/D the date of birth has been given 07.07.1969 and birth time 3:30. At the time of framing of charge the limited question is whether on the basis of material on record case is made out for framing of the charge. The case is not to be seen from the angle of acquittal. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record for framing the charge. It cannot be said that there is no material on record for framing the charge. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out any case for interference. 13. No other point was urged. 14. The result of the above discussion, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 30.11.2009, the record of the trial court be sent immediately so as to reach before the date fixed.