LexMOHINDER SINGH versus GULWANT SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MOHINDER SINGH v. GULW ANT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. DECEMBER 17, 1991 B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND YOGESHW AR DAY AL, JJ .] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 202-Scope and Nature of enquiry-Magistrate only to be sat- e isfied if a prima facie case exists-Offence of bigamy--Court going into suf- ficiency of evidence for convictio~eld the court exceeded its scope of enquiry. Section 482-High Courl-lnherent powers-Power to quash criminal D proceedings-Scope of. The appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jullundhar against the respondents alleging that while the matrimonial tie between his sister and his brother-in-law were subsisting, his brother-in- law performed a second marriage and committed the offence of bigamy E while the other respondents abetted and assisted the second marriage. The Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on being prima facie satisfied that the offence punishable under sections 494 and 109 of the IPC was made out, issued process to the respondents. F The respondents-accused filed petitions in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings against them. The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the appellant's complaint by holding that the complaint does not show an offence under Section 494 IPC. G In the appeal to this court, counsel for the respondents admitted the H second marriage of appellant's brother-in-law but denied the alleged first marriage between appellant's sister and appellant's brother-in-law. Setting aside the order of the High Court and allowing the appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 794/91 in part), this Court, 478 - -- MOHINDER v. GULWANT 479 / HELD: -t. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code .of A • Criminal Procedure is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or 'l-i otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue 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 B any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section -· 2()4 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusa- tion made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. [482 G-H, 483-A] '\ .. c ' Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for support- ing the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. During the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence addµced by the prosecution D 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. [483 A-B] Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors., (1976] 3 SCC 736; Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadi~ E ganoker and Anr., [1961] 1SCR1; Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan, AIR 1962 SC 876-(1962] 2 SCC 297, referred to. 2. In the instant case, the Court exceeded the scope of the enquiry .. contemplated under Section 202 of the Code by going into the question of sufficiency of evidence for conviction of the offence of bigamy. Further, in F view of the admission made by the counsel for the respondents admitting the second marriage the conclusion arrived at by the court in the im- pugned order that the complaint does not contain any allegation of the -I performance of the marriage cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. (483 C-D] G 3. There is no suffick nt material for proceedings against respon- dents-accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the complaint as having abetted the offence of bigamy, though there is sufficient ground as against the rest of the - respondents. Accordingly the impugned order of the High Court quashing the complaint against respondents, other than respondents 4 and 5, is set aside. [483 F-H] H 480 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.