Allowed

Aeji v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CRLMP/1563/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging framing of charges for bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Pre-charge witness statements cast doubt on the fact of a second marriage. Court allowed the petition, quashed the charge-framing orders and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh appreciation.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 18.08.2017 and 03.05.2018 quashed; matter remanded to trial court to re-hear parties and decide afresh on framing charge under Section 494 IPC; stay petition disposed of.

Aeji Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:798]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1563/2019

¶4

Aeji Spouse/o Shankar Lal Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, Sawanta, Ps Bhopalsagar, Tehsil Kapasan, District Chittorgarh

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Shankar Lal S/o Mangi Lal Gurjar, Sawanta, Ps Bhopalsagar, Tehsil Kapasan, District Chittorgarh

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sudhir Sarupariya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

05/01/2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order under assail as well as the material available on the record.

¶14

By way of filing the instant Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan whereby the learned Judge directed to frame charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC.

¶15

Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred a revision petition No.170/2017 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh camp

[2024:RJ-JD:798]

[CRLMP-1563/2019]

(2 of 3)

Kapasan which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2018. Hence, the instant Misc. Petition.

¶20

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and minutely gone through the material available on record. The legal position is not disputed that before framing of charge for bigamy there must be some material to show that the accused has solemnized second marriage during existence of his/her previous marriage. It is the case of the prosecution that in the case at hand, the petitioner Smt. Aeji was a legally wedded wife of one Shanker Lal Gurjar and during existence of her first marriage, she solemnized second marriage with one Chhoga Lal, resident of Village Netawal. The statements of P.W.1 Shanker, P.W.2 Mangi Lal and P.W. 3 Kishan Lal were recorded during taking of pre-charge evidence and a perusal of which casting a doubt over the fact of second marriage of the petitioner. Solemnizing a second marriage during existence of first marriage is a condition precedent to frame charge under Section 494 of the IPC. After having a cursory look over the material available on record this Court is of the view that for the satisfaction of the above fact, the matter is required to be re-appreciated again for the purpose of framing of charge under Section 494 of the IPC against the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the above, the instant Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned

[CRLMP-1563/2019]

[2024:RJ-JD:798]

(3 of 3)

Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan and order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Chittorgarh camp Kapasan are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to hear the parties again as per the mandate of law and then pass an order regarding framing of charge under Section 494 of the IPC and at that time the availability of elements essential to constitute an offence under Section 494 IPC shall be taken care of. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the any observation made in this order.

¶26

The stay petition also stand disposed of. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.

¶27

(FARJAND ALI), J.

¶28

418-Mamta/-

Aeji v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aeji v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shagufta Bano Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prashad Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan

Indraram @ Inderraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Pukharaj Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhu Singh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.