Ranjeet Kaur And Another vs Darshan Singh And Another on 8 May, 2010

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjeet Kaur And Another vs Darshan Singh And Another on 8 May, 2010
Criminal Misc. No. 40169-M of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal
Misc. No. 40169-M of 2007

Date of Decision: 8.4.2010

Ranjeet Kaur and Another

...Petitioners

Versus

Darshan Singh and Another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.S. Saggu,
Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate

General, Punjab, for respondent No.2.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by Ranjeet Kaur and Balwant Singh. Ranjeet Kaur, petitioner No.1, was
earlier married with Darshan Singh, complainant/respondent No.1, in the year 1995. On 18.10.2003, she
obtained ex parte divorce from Darshan Singh, complainant/respondent No.1 and remarried Balwant Singh,
petitioner No.2 in the month of February 2004.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by petitioner No.1 Ranjeet Kaur and petitioner
No.2 Balwant Singh, to whom she later re-married after obtaining ex parte divorce in the month of February
2004, with a prayer that a criminal complaint titled as Criminal Misc. No. 40169-M of 2007 2 "Darshan Singh
v. Ranjeet Kaur alias Beera and Others" (Annexure P1) for the offence under Sections 494, 499, 500, 506, 148
and 149 IPC, be quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings including the summoning order, passed by
the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh.

In the petition, it is stated that Ranjeet Kaur was earlier married to Darshan Singh, complainant/respondent
No.1, in the year 1995. Two daughters, both deaf and dumb, were born to her from the loins of Darshan
Singh. On 20.1.2003, Ranjeet Kaur was mercilessly beaten by Darshan Singh, respondent No.1, and was
turned out from her matrimonial home. Therefore, she obtained an ex parte decree of divorce against
respondent No.1 on 18.10.2003 (Annexure P2). After the period of limitation was over, in the month of
February 2004, she was re-married with Balwant Singh, petitioner No.2. Ranjeet Kaur is living happily with
her husband Balwant Singh and from the wedlock, two sons (twins) were born on 16.6.2006.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/982807/ 1
 Ranjeet Kaur And Another vs Darshan Singh And Another on 8 May, 2010

In the present petition, notice of motion was issued on 3.8.2007. Darshan Singh, complainant/respondent No.1
has filed his reply to the present petition on 8.7.2009. It is stated therein that he filed Criminal Misc. Appeal
No. 7 dated 24.3.2004 with a prayer that ex parte decree be set aside as the same was obtained by giving his
wrong address. The ex parte decree has been set aside by the Court of Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide
order dated 29.1.2005 (Annexure R1).

Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1, has urged before this Court that once a decree of
divorce was set aside, Criminal Misc. No. 40169-M of 2007 3 petitioner No.1 continued to be a legally
wedded wife of respondent No.1 and her re-marriage with petitioner No.2 is void ab initio and therefore, both
petitioners No.1 and 2 have rightly been put to trial in a complaint instituted by respondent No.1 for the
offence of bigamy. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner No.1 re-married with petitioner No.2 Balwant Singh after
a period of limitation to assail decree of divorce was over. Therefore, by mandate of law, both were legally
competent to solemnize their marriage. The ex parte decree was set aside later on in the year 2005. The decree
of divorce, even though ex parte, had the legal sanctity on the day when the marriage was performed by the
petitioners in the year 2004. Furthermore, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that due to
performance of their marriage, both the petitioners were blessed with two sons in the year 2006. Therefore,
the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence of bigamy is an abuse of process of law.

Thus, taking the whole gamut into consideration, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot be tried
for the offence of bigamy and it will be in the interest of justice to quash complaint dated 7.5.2004 (Annexure
P1) along with all the subsequent proceedings. Thus, the present petition is accepted and the complaint
(Annexure P1) along with all the subsequent proceedings are quashed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)

Judge

April 8, 2010

"DK"

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/982807/ 2