Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kanhiya Lal vs Durga Devi on 1 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26972]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 908/2013
Kanhiya Lal son of Shri Gumana Ram, by caste Meghwal, at
present Head Master, Government High School, Pal, Tehsil Luni,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Durga Devi w/o Kanhiyalal by caste Meghwal resident of village
Meghdara, Nimaj, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 905/2013
Kanhiya Lal son of Shri Gumana Ram, by caste Meghwal, at
present Head Master, Government High School, Pal, Tehsil Luni,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Durga Devi w/o Kanhiyalal by caste Meghwal resident of village
Meghdara, Nimaj, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON : 15.05.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 01.07.2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. These two revision petitions have been directed against the
two separate orders of the learned trial Court in a prosecution
under Section 494 of IPC. Both the orders of the learned
Magistrate were set asided by the learned Court of Revision,
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:32:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26972] (2 of 4) [CRLR-908/2013]
hence, the petitioner – husband made challenge before this Court
by way of filing the instant revision petitions.
1.2 Bereft of elaborate details, briefly stated the facts of the case
are that the respondent – wife filed a complaint under Section 494
of IPC against her husband, the petitioner, wherein after
completion of inquiry contemplated under Sections 200 and 202 of
the Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence
under Section 494 of IPC and proceeded further in the matter for
recording of the pre-charge evidence. The statement of P.W.-1
Durga Devi, P.W.-2 Babu Lal, P.W.-3 Madan Lal were recorded
completely but owing to the lengthy examination or perhaps
paucity of time, the statement of P.W-4 Bhagwati Lal could not be
completed and much time elapsed whereafter. Since there was a
direction of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in a
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the
petitioner – husband challenging the order of taking cognizance to
complete the proceeding expeditiously, therefore, the learned trial
Court closed the evidence of the prosecution and passed an order
for not making consideration of the evidence of P.W.-4 Bhagwati
Lal. The respondent – wife made a challenge by way of filing a
revision petition. The learned Court of Revision prudently
examined the matter and observed that neither the complainant
nor her witness P.W-4 Bhagwati Lal were responsible for the delay
caused because there were several other circumstances and
further observing that the said witness P.W.-4 was the only
material witness surviving and his evidence was considered
essential for the just decision of the case; allowed the revision
petition and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:32:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26972] (3 of 4) [CRLR-908/2013]
Court to complete the statement of P.W.-4 Bhagwati Lal. In the
meantime, the learned trial Court heard the parties on the point of
charge and vide order dated 12.12.2011, discharged the petitioner
from the charge of Section 494 of IPC and dismissed the
complaint. The learned Court of revision had allowed the revision
petition of the wife to the extent of recording of further statement
of P.W.-4 and at a subsequent stage, allowed the revision petition
filed against the dismissal of her complaint and discharged of the
accused. The learned Sessions Judge set asided the order of
discharge of the accused and remanded back the matter to the
learned trial Court to complete the statement of P.W.-4 Bhagwati
Lal and then to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely
gone through the niceties of the matter and so also gone through
the record of the case.
2.1 This Court feels that the order whereby the learned
Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence and declined to
complete the statement of P.W.-4 Bhagwati Lal was not in
consonance of the spirit of law and justice. The learned revisional
Court has very aptly considered this aspect which warrants no
interference of this Court. The subsequent dismissal of the
complaint and discharge of the accused in absence of complete
statement of P.W.-4 Bhagwati Lal cannot be said to be a
reasonable order, rather reflecting a hang haste approach of the
learned trial court.
2.3 The instant petitions moved on behalf of the husband
seeking challenge to the order of the learned Sessions Judge in
revisional jurisdiction, for which, no cogent and lawful submissions
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:32:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26972] (4 of 4) [CRLR-908/2013]
have been made. A litigant who is a victim of bigamy cannot be
deprived to plead her case appropriately before the Court of first
instance and should be given proper opportunity. There is no force
in these two petitions and the same deserve dismissal since no
illegality or incorrectness have been pointed out.
3. Accordingly, the instant petitions are dismissed. The order
dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Criminal Revision Petition
No.66/2011 is further affirmed. The order passed by the same
Court in Criminal Revision No.67/2011 setting aside discharge of
the accused also get affirmation of this Court. The record be sent
back to the learned trial Court with the direction to hear the
parties again as directed by the Court of Revision and then to pass
a fresh order in accordance with law.
4. The record be sent back forthwith without unnecessary delay.
(FARJAND ALI),J
12-divya/-
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:32:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)