Criminal Case No. 33211 of 2024 · High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Rejoinder Affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. Office to register the same.

2. Heard Ms. Prateeksha Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State, Sri Agnivesh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

3. The applicants have preferred instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing validity of cognizance order dated 23.04.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Firozabad in Criminal Case No. 33211 of 2024, State v. Ramsanesh @ Ramnaresh and others, under Sections 420, 494 IPC, P.S. Nagla Khangar, District Firozabad arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, charge-sheet dated 21.02.2024 and the proceedings of said case.

Brief facts of the case are that a first information report1 was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 09.02.2023 at 21:50 hours, under Sections 420 and 494 IPC, bearing Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, Police Station Nagla Khangar, District Firozabad, against eight named and one unknown person with the allegation that the applicants have conspired in a forged manner in getting second marriage of applicant no. 1 - Deepak Yadav solemnized with applicant no. 3 - Smt. Laxmi, and have procured 1 FIR 2 manipulated forged documents to prove marriage of applicant no. 3 with applicant no. 2. It has been further alleged that marriage of O.P. No. 2 – Smt. Sushma Yadav was solemnized with applicant no. 1 on

19.11.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The O.P. No. 2 was mentally and physically tortured by the applicants raising additional dowry demand. They also threatened to kill her. A case has been lodged in this regard against the applicants at Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad and is pending before the concerned court. The O.P. No. 2 was beaten and abused by the applicants and was thrown out of the house without giving a single penny from the amount of Rs. 25 lakh which was spent in her marriage, after which she started residing with her parents. Husband of O.P. No. 2 is sepoy in Indian army.

4.1 Further allegations in the FIR are that the applicants conspired to get forged documents prepared showing marriage of Laxmi with younger brother of Deepak Yadav, namely, Turshant Yadav – applicant no. 2. A forged affidavit on Ten Rupee Stamp has also been prepared to prove the aforesaid marriage of Laxmi with younger brother of Deepak Yadav. The marriage of Deepak Yadav was performed at the place of maternal uncle of Laxmi, namely, Antram Singh. It has further been stated that as mother of Laxmi had passed away in her childhood, Laxmi was brought up at her maternal uncle’s place.

4.2 It is also alleged in the FIR that after coming to know about the aforesaid marriage of Laxmi with Deepak, the O.P. No. 2 moved an application before the Incharge of concerned police station who conducted enquiry and found that Deepak Yadav has performed marriage with Laxmi and by playing fraud he also forged papers including affidavit in order to show that the marriage of Laxmi was performed with some other person. 3

4.3 After investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants on 21.02.2024, in which the applicants have been summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 23.04.2024, hence the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations against the applicants are false and present FIR has been lodged against entire family members to exert pressure upon the applicants as earlier also an FIR with respect to matrimonial dispute between the parties has been lodged which is pending.

6. The real fact is that applicant no. 3 – Laxmi has performed marriage with dewar of O.P. No. 2, namely, Turshant Yadav – applicant no. 2. In order to prove the aforesaid marriage, documents such as notarized affidavit dated 22.02.2022 has been placed at Page-89 mentioning about marriage being performed in a temple on 22.02.2022. The certificate of registration of marriage dated 13.09.2022 has been placed at Page-95 and a clear copy whereof at Page-9 of Second Supplementary Affidavit. The dependent identity has also been placed at Page-97 of the petition to prove the marriage of applicant no. 2 with Laxmi. A clear copy of the said document has been enclosed at Page-11 of the Second Supplementary Affidavit.

7. The record of office of applicant no. 2, placed at Page-11A of Second Supplementary Affidavit also shows that after performing marriage with Laxmi, the applicant no. 2 - Turshant Yadav has got the entry in the records. The khatauni has also been placed at Page-13 of the said affidavit that the applicant no. 2 had purchased a land and applicant no.3 is mentioned as wife of applicant no. 2 therein. The relevant date mentioned in the revenue record is 25.10.2024, wherein 4 the names of applicant nos. 2 & 3 have been recorded in the revenue record against the land in question.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair manner as father of O.P. No. 2 was posted as Sub-Inspector in the same district, therefore, offence under the relevant sections is not made out.

9. Last submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that even if it is presumed that Deepak Yadav has performed marriage with Laxmi, offence under Section 494 IPC will not be made out against other applicants, who are family members of Deepak Yadav as also against Laxmi and her family members with whom it is alleged that Deepak Yadav has performed marriage. In support of his submissions, she has placed reliance on a judgement of Supreme Court in the case of S. Nitheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.2

10. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State submit that perusal of the version of FIR, statement of charge-sheet witnesses and the enquiry as conducted on the complaint of O.P. No. 2, shows that offence under the relevant sections is made out and forged documents have been prepared to prove the marriage of Turshant Yadav with Laxmi.

11. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 further submits that to save himself, Deepak Yadav has conspired along with other family members including Laxmi and other applicants to get all the documents prepared for the marriage of Turshant Yadav and Laxmi which was alleged to be performed on 22.02.2022 and a complaint in this regard was made, which is clear from Page-7 of the first supplementary affidavit, wherein 2 SLP (Criminal) No. 8529 of 2019, decided on 15.05.2024 5 mentioning about the date of complaint by O.P. No. 2, an application has been given on 08.11.2022 by O.P. No. 2.

12. Drawing attention of the Court to the statements of charge-sheet witnesses, namely, Ranveer Singh, Sugar Singh, Sani Dewal and Pushpendra, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that all have stated about second marriage of Deepak Yadav with Laxmi and also the fact that forged documents were prepared in order to prove the marriage of Laxmi with younger brother of Deepak Yadav.

13. As regards the documents, as relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants to prove the marriage of Turshant Yadav with applicant no. 3, notarized affidavit has been found to be a forged document and the enquiry has been conducted which finds mention in CD Parcha No. 1, annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the short counter affidavit. The details of enquiry report have been placed at Page-8 of short counter affidavit.

14. As regards the dependent identity placed at Page-11 of the second supplementary affidavit mentions about Laxmi Kumari, whose date of birth is 28.09.2003. The relation between Turshant and Laxmi Kumari is not disclosed in the said dependent identity. Insofar as other records at the work place of Turshant Yadav, which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants, any entry made in the records, as stated by the person concerned, are always subject to an enquiry in case any application is made in this regard. In the present case, on the complaint of O.P. No. 2 dated 11.07.2022, proper enquiry has been conducted and the marriage of Turshant Yadav and Laxmi has been found to have been performed to save Deepak Yadav who performed second marriage with Laxmi.

15. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also placed emphasis upon the fact that Laxmi first agreed for DNA test and later in 6 order to save her skin as well as that of the applicant no. 1 she refused for DNA test which also creates doubt on the marriage of applicant no. 2 Turshant Yadav with Laxmi. He has relied upon a judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etc.3, wherein the Apex Court has held that initiation of criminal proceedings are malicious or not, is required to be considered at the conclusion of trial by the concerned court and not by High Court.

16. As regards the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants in S. Nitheen (supra), that the offence under Section 494 IPC is not made out against all the applicants, the judgement is not applicable in the facts of the present case where Section 420 IPC along with 494 IPC is involved.

17. Section 420 IPC provides whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished, while Section 494 IPC says that, whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished.

18. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others4, wherein offence under Sections 494, 496, 498-A, 112, 120-B IPC was involved, has held that exercise of powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. The Court has further held that in the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an 3 4 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292 1990 (Supp) SCC 686 offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement reads thus: 7 “3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.

4. The High Court without proper application of the principles that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar5, S. Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi6 and Municipal Corporationof Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala7 proceeded to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. We find there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere.” (emphasis supplied)

19. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants’ learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether 5 6 7

Brief facts of the case are that a first information report1 was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 09.02.2023 at 21:50 hours, under Sections 420 and 494 IPC, bearing Case Crime No. 30 of 2023, Police Station Nagla Khangar, District Firozabad, against eight named and one unknown person with the allegation that the applicants have conspired in a forged manner in getting second marriage of applicant no. 1 - Deepak Yadav solemnized with applicant no. 3 - Smt. Laxmi, and have procured 1 FIR 2 manipulated forged documents to prove marriage of applicant no. 3 with applicant no. 2. It has been further alleged that marriage of O.P. No. 2 – Smt. Sushma Yadav was solemnized with applicant no. 1 on

19.11.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The O.P. No. 2 was mentally and physically tortured by the applicants raising additional dowry demand. They also threatened to kill her. A case has been lodged in this regard against the applicants at Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad and is pending before the concerned court. The O.P. No. 2 was beaten and abused by the applicants and was thrown out of the house without giving a single penny from the amount of Rs. 25 lakh which was spent in her marriage, after which she started residing with her parents. Husband of O.P. No. 2 is sepoy in Indian army.

4.1 Further allegations in the FIR are that the applicants conspired to get forged documents prepared showing marriage of Laxmi with younger brother of Deepak Yadav, namely, Turshant Yadav – applicant no. 2. A forged affidavit on Ten Rupee Stamp has also been prepared to prove the aforesaid marriage of Laxmi with younger brother of Deepak Yadav. The marriage of Deepak Yadav was performed at the place of maternal uncle of Laxmi, namely, Antram Singh. It has further been stated that as mother of Laxmi had passed away in her childhood, Laxmi was brought up at her maternal uncle’s place.

4.2 It is also alleged in the FIR that after coming to know about the aforesaid marriage of Laxmi with Deepak, the O.P. No. 2 moved an application before the Incharge of concerned police station who conducted enquiry and found that Deepak Yadav has performed marriage with Laxmi and by playing fraud he also forged papers including affidavit in order to show that the marriage of Laxmi was performed with some other person. 3

4.3 After investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants on 21.02.2024, in which the applicants have been summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 23.04.2024, hence the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations against the applicants are false and present FIR has been lodged against entire family members to exert pressure upon the applicants as earlier also an FIR with respect to matrimonial dispute between the parties has been lodged which is pending.

6. The real fact is that applicant no. 3 – Laxmi has performed marriage with dewar of O.P. No. 2, namely, Turshant Yadav – applicant no. 2. In order to prove the aforesaid marriage, documents such as notarized affidavit dated 22.02.2022 has been placed at Page-89 mentioning about marriage being performed in a temple on 22.02.2022. The certificate of registration of marriage dated 13.09.2022 has been placed at Page-95 and a clear copy whereof at Page-9 of Second Supplementary Affidavit. The dependent identity has also been placed at Page-97 of the petition to prove the marriage of applicant no. 2 with Laxmi. A clear copy of the said document has been enclosed at Page-11 of the Second Supplementary Affidavit.

7. The record of office of applicant no. 2, placed at Page-11A of Second Supplementary Affidavit also shows that after performing marriage with Laxmi, the applicant no. 2 - Turshant Yadav has got the entry in the records. The khatauni has also been placed at Page-13 of the said affidavit that the applicant no. 2 had purchased a land and applicant no.3 is mentioned as wife of applicant no. 2 therein. The relevant date mentioned in the revenue record is 25.10.2024, wherein 4 the names of applicant nos. 2 & 3 have been recorded in the revenue record against the land in question.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair manner as father of O.P. No. 2 was posted as Sub-Inspector in the same district, therefore, offence under the relevant sections is not made out.

9. Last submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that even if it is presumed that Deepak Yadav has performed marriage with Laxmi, offence under Section 494 IPC will not be made out against other applicants, who are family members of Deepak Yadav as also against Laxmi and her family members with whom it is alleged that Deepak Yadav has performed marriage. In support of his submissions, she has placed reliance on a judgement of Supreme Court in the case of S. Nitheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.2

10. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State submit that perusal of the version of FIR, statement of charge-sheet witnesses and the enquiry as conducted on the complaint of O.P. No. 2, shows that offence under the relevant sections is made out and forged documents have been prepared to prove the marriage of Turshant Yadav with Laxmi.

11. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 further submits that to save himself, Deepak Yadav has conspired along with other family members including Laxmi and other applicants to get all the documents prepared for the marriage of Turshant Yadav and Laxmi which was alleged to be performed on 22.02.2022 and a complaint in this regard was made, which is clear from Page-7 of the first supplementary affidavit, wherein 2 SLP (Criminal) No. 8529 of 2019, decided on 15.05.2024 5 mentioning about the date of complaint by O.P. No. 2, an application has been given on 08.11.2022 by O.P. No. 2.

12. Drawing attention of the Court to the statements of charge-sheet witnesses, namely, Ranveer Singh, Sugar Singh, Sani Dewal and Pushpendra, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that all have stated about second marriage of Deepak Yadav with Laxmi and also the fact that forged documents were prepared in order to prove the marriage of Laxmi with younger brother of Deepak Yadav.

13. As regards the documents, as relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants to prove the marriage of Turshant Yadav with applicant no. 3, notarized affidavit has been found to be a forged document and the enquiry has been conducted which finds mention in CD Parcha No. 1, annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the short counter affidavit. The details of enquiry report have been placed at Page-8 of short counter affidavit.

14. As regards the dependent identity placed at Page-11 of the second supplementary affidavit mentions about Laxmi Kumari, whose date of birth is 28.09.2003. The relation between Turshant and Laxmi Kumari is not disclosed in the said dependent identity. Insofar as other records at the work place of Turshant Yadav, which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants, any entry made in the records, as stated by the person concerned, are always subject to an enquiry in case any application is made in this regard. In the present case, on the complaint of O.P. No. 2 dated 11.07.2022, proper enquiry has been conducted and the marriage of Turshant Yadav and Laxmi has been found to have been performed to save Deepak Yadav who performed second marriage with Laxmi.

15. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also placed emphasis upon the fact that Laxmi first agreed for DNA test and later in 6 order to save her skin as well as that of the applicant no. 1 she refused for DNA test which also creates doubt on the marriage of applicant no. 2 Turshant Yadav with Laxmi. He has relied upon a judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etc.3, wherein the Apex Court has held that initiation of criminal proceedings are malicious or not, is required to be considered at the conclusion of trial by the concerned court and not by High Court.

16. As regards the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants in S. Nitheen (supra), that the offence under Section 494 IPC is not made out against all the applicants, the judgement is not applicable in the facts of the present case where Section 420 IPC along with 494 IPC is involved.

17. Section 420 IPC provides whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished, while Section 494 IPC says that, whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished.

18. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others4, wherein offence under Sections 494, 496, 498-A, 112, 120-B IPC was involved, has held that exercise of powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. The Court has further held that in the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an 3 4 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292 1990 (Supp) SCC 686 offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement reads thus: 7 “3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.

4. The High Court without proper application of the principles that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar5, S. Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi6 and Municipal Corporationof Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala7 proceeded to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. We find there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere.” (emphasis supplied)

19. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants’ learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether 5 6 7