JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. By filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of Criminal Complaint under Sections 494, 109, 114 of Indian Penal Code, titled as “Smt. Kusum Lata vs. Jaswinder Beniwal and others” pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and the summoning order dated 12.7.2000, passed therein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, who is respondent no.2, filed a complaint against the petitioner and also a number of other persons. She lodged FIR No.348 dated 16.6.1997, under Sections 498A, 323, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. The complainant alleged that she had got married to Jaswinder Beniwal on 25.10.1995, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at House No.1100/2, Sector 39B, Chandigarh in the presence of close relatives. The marriage was solemnised at Chandigarh, where the couple resided after marriage. The complainant conceived and she received a message from the petitioner that she should come and live with them at Hisar, pursuant to which, she went to Hisar on 4.12.1996. She was then taken to Jaipur after a period of two days, where she developed some complications and was taken to hospital at Jaipur for checkup. She realised subsequently that the foetus had been aborted without her knowledge and consent. The doctor disclosed that it was done with the consent of her husband. Her husband Jaswinder Beniwal used to misbehave with her under the influence of liquor. In March, 1997, her husband and the petitioner threatened her that they will remarry Jaswinder Beniwal, which forced the complainant to file a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, in which notice was issued on 5.4.1997 for 7.4.1997. Her husband, thereafter, assured her that he will not contract a second marriage. He went to Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh on 18.4.1997 and again solemnised the marriage with the complainant. Feeling reassured, the complainant withdrew the civil suit on 30.4.1997. Thereafter the couple went to Gurgaon, where they resided as husband and wife in Jalwayu Vihar, Gurgaon. She was then deserted by her husband on 15.6.1997, who came back and started residing at Hisar. The complainant along with her sister, followed him to Hisar. Feeling reassured, the complainant withdrew the civil suit on 30.4.1997. Thereafter the couple went to Gurgaon, where they resided as husband and wife in Jalwayu Vihar, Gurgaon. She was then deserted by her husband on 15.6.1997, who came back and started residing at Hisar. The complainant along with her sister, followed him to Hisar. On the intervening night of 15/16.6.1997, when the complainant was present at her parental house, Jaswinder Beniwal took her to his house situated at Farm Colony, Barwala Road, Hisar. She was beaten up and was taken to the house of the petitioner. Other relatives were also present there. They cursed her and abused her for not bringing an Esteem Car. The complainant then lodged FIR No.348 dated 16.6.1997 with Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar under Sections 498A/323/148/149 IPC. All the accused persons named in the FIR were arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, it was alleged that Jaswinder Beniwal forcibly took away the record of Arya Samaj Mandir, which had issued the marriage certificate. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent no.2, is a habitual and a chronic litigant. She is also involved in several criminal cases, details of which were given in paragraph 9 of the petition, which enlisted the involvement of the complainant in as many as 10 cases, which also include the offence under Section 307 IPC. The sole allegation against the petitioner is that she knowingly contracted a marriage with Jaswinder Singh Beniwal, the alleged husband of the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Kusum against Jaswinder Singh was dismissed on 24.8.2013. He cites Sham Singh vs. Sarbjit Kaur 1998(3) RCR (Crl.) 78. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainantrespondent contends that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. In this regard, she refers a certificate of marriage bearing Sr. No.336 issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh was issued to them. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. The question for determination in this case is as to “whether a judgment of matrimonial court passed in proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is relevant while deciding a case under Section 494 IPC between the same parties?” 7. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. The question for determination in this case is as to “whether a judgment of matrimonial court passed in proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is relevant while deciding a case under Section 494 IPC between the same parties?” 7. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to the second marriage between Jaswinder Singh and Smt. Manisha. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, while deciding issue No.1 “Whether the petitioner (respondent in the present case) was married with the respondent as per Hindu rites on 18.4.1997?OPP” vide judgment dated 24.8.2012, has observed as under: “18. So far as certificate Ex.PW1/1 is concerned, as per the petitioner's own version, the original record was taken by the respondent on 05.06.1997 from the custody of Som Dutt, Secretary of the Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh then on what basis, the Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh issued the certificate Ex.PW1/1 on 25.06.1997. Thus, it is apparent that the certificate dated 25.06.1997 Ex.PW1/1 is not based on any record of the alleged marriage between the parties. The petitioner has also placed on record photocopy of the photograph of the alleged marriage. The original photographs of the marriage have not been placed on file. Without the negatives and the original photographs, the photocopies of the photographs cannot be taken into consideration. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner filed a case vide FIR No.348 dated 16.06.1997, under Sections 498A, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar Ex.R10. In the said case, the police has submitted the cancellation report observing that no evidence was found to establish the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner also filed a complaint against the respondent and others under Sections 498A, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, but the accused has been discharged by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar vide judgment dated 17.12.2007, Ex.R13. In para No.27 of the said judgment, it has been observed that from the testimony of complainant, her witnesses and documents placed on record, she has not been able to establish her marriage with the accused Jaswinder Singh. Besides all this, the petitioner has not placed even a single document on record wherein the name of respondent is recorded as her husband.” 8. Besides all this, the petitioner has not placed even a single document on record wherein the name of respondent is recorded as her husband.” 8. This Court in the case of Chander Parkash Nagpal vs. Hari Singh, reported as 1991(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter, 262 has observed as follows : “8. In so far as the other accused excluding Chander Parkash, his second wife Gita and his parents, are concerned, they cannot be said to have abetted the commission of the offence under Section 494, I.P.C. (by Chander Parkash accused), even if it may be assumed for the sake of argument that they were aware of his first marriage with Veena. The mere fact that they participated in the marriage or they accepted some Shagun in the form of Milni etc. during the ceremonies of the marriage, cannot lead to the conclusion that they had abetted the commission of the offence by Chander Parkash, accused. In the circumstances of the impugned order, whereby the accused, other than Chander Parkash, Geeta, Ram Baksh and Shielo, have been charged under Section 494 read with section 109, I.P.C. is held to be improper and unsustainable. However, nothing could be seriously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the impugned order in so far as the framing of the ChargeSheet against Chander Parkash and Geeta accused under Section 494, I.P.C. and against Ram Baksh and Shielo under Section 494 I.P.C. read with Section 109 I.P.C. is concerned. Hence this part of the order is maintained.” 9. Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act provide that judgments of court of justice are relevant and to that effect, Section 41 provides for relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction and makes it relevant or conclusive as provided therein. Judgment (Annexure P14) dated 24.8.2012, “Kusum vs. Jaswinder Singh” passed in HMA case No.2 of 2004, is binding on the parties. In this judgment, it has been held that she has not been able to establish her marriage with the accused Jaswinder Singh. Para 19 of the judgment reads as under: “As a sequel to my above discussion, the petitioner has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 18.04.1997 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Para 19 of the judgment reads as under: “As a sequel to my above discussion, the petitioner has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and her marriage was solemnized with respondent on 18.04.1997 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector 22, Chandigarh. This, issue is thus, decided against the petitioner.” 10. It is also admitted fact that respondent No.2, got registered a criminal case under Sections 498A, 323, 148, 149 of IPC at Hisar, in which, the police cancelled the FIR observing that there was no evidence regarding marriage between Kusum and Jaswinder Singh. In a complaint case filed by respondent No.2 on similar facts, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar vide judgment dated 17.12.2007, discharged the accused holding that no marriage was proved. Divorce petition filed by respondent no.2 was dismissed solely on the ground that the solemnization of a legal and valid marriage between Kusum and Jaswinder Singh not proved. 11. The ingredients of Section 494 of IPC are not proved. When the first legal subsisting marriage is not proved between Kusum Lata and Jaswinder Singh, the respondent No.2 has no locus standi to file complaint against any person on the ground of abetment of offence under Section 494 of IPC. Here the petitioner is the alleged second wife of Jaswinder Singh Beniwal, against whom, no criminal proceedings can be initiated on the ground that first marriage between Kusum and Jaswinder Singh is not proved. If the first marriage between Kusum and Jaswinder Singh is not proved in a competent Court of law, no offence under Section 494 IPC is committed by the alleged second wife i.e. the petitioner by marrying Jaswinder Singh, if it is so. 12. Now coming to the point as to whether a judgment of a matrimonial court passed in proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is relevant while deciding a case under Section 494 of IPC between the same parties, the complete answer is in para 16 to 20 of the Supreme Court Judgment in Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and another (2002) 8 SCC 87 ; AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3372: 16. In our view, the submission of learned Addl. Solicitor General requires to be accepted. Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act provide which judgments of Courts of justice are relevant and to what extent. In our view, the submission of learned Addl. Solicitor General requires to be accepted. Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act provide which judgments of Courts of justice are relevant and to what extent. Section 40 provides for previous judgment, order or a decree which by law prevents in a court while taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, to be relevant fact when the question is whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial. Section 40 is as under: "40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial. The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial." 17. Section 41 provides for relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction and makes it relevant or conclusive as provided therein. 18. Section 41 reads thus: "41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction. A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof that any legal character which it confers accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued, to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person; that any legal character which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had ceased or should case; and that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property. 19. Section 42 with illustration reads thus : "42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41 Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry, but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Illustration: A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists. 20. Thereafter, Section 43 in terms provides that judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41, 42 are irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some provisions of the Act.” Therefore, it is held that the judgment in Hindu Marriage Act case No.02 of 2004 titled as Kusum vs. Jaswinder Singh, decided on 24.8.2012, by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh is relevant in criminal proceedings under Section 494 of the IPC. 13. Thus, in the present case, the learned Additional District Judge has disbelieved the marriage of the respondent with Jaswinder Singh, husband of the petitioner. 13. Thus, in the present case, the learned Additional District Judge has disbelieved the marriage of the respondent with Jaswinder Singh, husband of the petitioner. The FIR qua the parents of the petitioner and brother of Jaswinder Singh have already been quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 9.3.2007, passed in CRM No.M15664 of 2003. For the aforesaid reason, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court, in order to secure the ends of justice, deems it appropriate to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint and the consequent summoning order. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the complaint preferred by respondent no.2 under Sections 494, 109, 114 IPC, titled as “Smt. Kusum Lata vs. Jaswinder Beniwal and others” and also the summoning order dated 12.7.2000, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.