Aekata Roy @ Ekta Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the..........therefore the complicity of the petitioner under sections 494/109, ipc could not be made out.5. mr. rajiv ranjan further pointed out that this fact has come on record with the admission of o.p. no. 2 herself, when she asserted before cognizance taking court on 8.6.2004 on s.a. vide page 17 of the petition 'mujhe mere pati se koi santan nahi mujhe mere pati ki dusari saadi ke bare me 11 april, 2004 ko malum hua. iske anusar unhone 1996 me saadi ki thi.... maine ekta roy ko nahi dekha hai.'6. therefore the allegation that she having knowledge regarding earlier marriage of the co-accused instigated and abated him to marry her is apparently false. mr. rajiv ranjan further pointed out that the ingredients of section 494, ipc is also lacking in the facts that the person, who married second time, can only be punished for the offence. it is submitted that the petitioner was not married earlier and in no case her complicity along with other co-accused persons provides any offence and punishment.7. the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not maintainable because she admittedly married with ran vijay deo,.....

Judgment:

ORDER

D.P. Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, Ekta Roy against the order of the learned Court below dated 27.7.2006 by which her petitions for discharge stood rejected along with other co-accused persons.

2. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused along with other accused persons allegedly having married with accused No. 1, Ran Vijay Prasad Deo during the lifetime of complainant O.P. No. 2, Poonam Singh. Cognizance was taken against the petitioner and others and they were summoned to face trial in complaint Case No. 781 of 2004. The complainant has examined herself along with witnesses in support of the allegations.

3. When the case was fixed for framing of charge, three petitions were preferred by the petitioner and the other co-accused persons under Sections 227/245, CrPC for their discharge on the ground mentioned in the petition. Rejoinders were filed by the O.P. No. 2. The learned Court below having heard the petitions and rejoinders to pass the impugned order, refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 227, CrPC. He further discussed the provisions under Section 245, CrPC. According to the learned lower Court the present petitioner was to be charged under Sections 494/109, IPC. As such the present petition.

4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has no knowledge about the previous marriage of co-accused with the complainant, which admittedly took place in the year 1988. It is further submitted that as per allegations, her marriage with co-accused took place at Delhi on 1.11.1996, during which period the O.P. No. 2 was not living with the co-accused. According to the learned Counsel the petitioner, she has no knowledge that co-accused Ran Vijay Deo earlier married, she got married with him under 'Arya Samaj' at Delhi. Therefore the complicity of the petitioner under Sections 494/109, IPC could not be made out.

5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further pointed out that this fact has come on record with the admission of O.P. No. 2 herself, when she asserted before cognizance taking Court on 8.6.2004 on S.A. vide page 17 of the petition 'Mujhe mere pati se koi santan nahi Mujhe mere pati ki dusari saadi ke bare me 11 April, 2004 ko malum hua. Iske anusar unhone 1996 me saadi ki thi.... Maine Ekta Roy ko nahi dekha hai.'

6. Therefore the allegation that she having knowledge regarding earlier marriage of the co-accused instigated and abated him to marry her is apparently false. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further pointed out that the ingredients of Section 494, IPC is also lacking in the facts that the person, who married second time, can only be punished for the offence. It is submitted that the petitioner was not married earlier and in no case her complicity along with other co-accused persons provides any offence and punishment.

7. The learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not maintainable because she admittedly married with Ran Vijay Deo, who was already married with O.P. No. 2. It is also submitted that the prayer for discharge of other co-accused persons have been rejected by this Court in Cr. Rev. Nos. 749 and 754 of 2006 which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr) No. 2959 of 2007. As such the plea of the petitioner is not maintainable.

8. After going through the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it is apparent that the petitioner got married with co-accused Ran Vijay Deo in the year 1996 when he was living separately from O.P. No. 2. This fact has come to the notice of O.P. NO. 2 in April, 2004, as per her statement before the Cognizance Taking Court. Therefore, the plea that the petitioner married with co-accused without having knowledge that he was already married and that the petitioner has been married for the first time is undisputed. In such circumstances, the trial Court should have considered this aspect before rejecting the prayer for discharge.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the trial Curt to consider afresh the prayer of the petitioner separately whether she requires to be tried for the offences under Section 494, IPC or not. However, this observation will not affect the trial of other co-accused persons, if going on.