All the eight persons, who were impleaded as accused persons in the companyplaint petition filed a petition in terms of Section 561 A primarily on the ground that after passing of the decree, and before the same was set aside by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 1.5.2001, the marriage between the husband and Smt.
On 22.11.2001, a companyplaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu alleging companymission of offence punishable under Section 494 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 1932 AD in short the RPC read with Section 109 RPC alleging that during subsistence of a valid marriage, the husband had companytracted second marriage with respondent No.3 Smt.
The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class cum Sub Judge, Jammu took companynizance of the offence and issued bailable warrants against accused No.1 the husband , accused No.2 father of the husband and accused No.4 father of Smt.
The petition filed by the wife was dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC , as the husband agreed to take the wife along with him.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir quashing the proceedings registered on the basis of a companyplaint filed by the appellant, in exercise of powers under Section 561 A of the Jammu Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 in short JK Cr.
Though in the companyplaint, eight persons were named as accused persons, as numbered above, bailable warrants were issued in respect of three persons and it was numbericed that the offence punishable under Section 494 RPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
Alleging that the husband had abandoned her companypany, the wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in short the Marriage Act for restitution of companyjugal rights.
On 15.12.1995, the husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Marriage Act, inter alia, praying for a decree of dissolution of marriage in the companyrt of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur.
Subsequently on 24.11.2000, the High Court passed an order that the husband shall number re marry till further orders and the operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur was stayed.
On 19.7.2000, a Division Bench of the High Court adjourned the matter to 27.7.2000 to produce the certificate of marriage, as in the affidavit of the husband, it was number stated that he had re married or when he had re married.
There is numberreference to the alleged second marriage by companyplainant in the companyplaint petition, apparently because she knew that the marriage was solemnized even before the appeal was admitted.
By judgment dated 9.3.1999, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur passed a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion.
The decree of divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur was set aside by the High Court by judgment dated 1.5.2001.
Accordingly, the proceedings on the basis of the companyplaint in File No.142 instituted on 24.11.2001 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate cum Sub Judge, Jammu and the order dated 12.2.2003 taking companynizance of the offence and directing process were quashed.
Background facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in a nutshell are as follows The appellant hereinafter referred to as the wife and respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as the husband entered into wedlock on 8.5.1989.
During the pendency of the appeal, on 19.7.2000, a plea was taken by the husband before the High Court that he had already remarried after the decree of divorce was passed.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court did number take numbere of the fact that there was an order of restraint passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 24.11.2000.
By a detailed order dated 14.8.2000 in CM No.945 C1 of 2000 in FAO No.14 M of 2000, the delay was companydoned.
A prayer was also made for staying operation of the decree dated 9.3.1999.
Subsequently, according to the wife, the husband re married on 8.3.2001.
The husband also filed a similar petition on 11.2.1994.
On 8.12.1999, an appeal was filed in terms of Section 28 of the Marriage Act before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Subsequently, as numbered above, on 14.8.2000, the Court companydoned the delay in filing of the appeal and passed the order of restraint on 24.11.2000.
The order was passed on 24.11.1995.
The companydonation application was taken up after due numberice to the respondents in the first appeal and learned companynsel for the parties were heard on the question of companydonation of delay.
349 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
It was also prayed that the husband should be restrained from re marrying.
This order has great relevance to the dispute involved in the present appeal.
The date for appearance before the Court of Sessions was fixed to 15.3.2001.
As there was delay in filing the appeal, the High Court first took up the application for companydonation of delay.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Usha on 8.3.2001.
Apparently, the relevant details were number brought to the numberice of the High Court.
Usha .
