Criminal Application (Main) No.34 of 2009

6th July, 2009

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. M. TELES , Shri. A. OLIVEIRA
Respondent Counsel: Shri. S. DESSAI

Cases Cited:
Fakirappa Vs. Shiddalingappa, 2002 Cri.L.J. 1926 [Para 6]
Bhiku Yeshwant Dhangat Vs. Baban Maruti Barate, 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1437=2001 Cri.L.J. 295 [Para 6,7]
Vashu Gokaldas Kukreja Vs. Meena Vashu Kukreja, 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1719=2004 Bom.C.R. 734 [Para 7,8]
Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs. Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1560=2006 Cri.L.J. 3114 [Para 7,8]
Pramila Mahesh Shah Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1852=2002(2) Mh.L.J. 100 [Para 7]
Ujjagar Singh Numberdar Vs. Harbhajan Singh, 1985(1) Crimes 111 [Para 10,12]
Revanasiddaswamy H. M. Vs. State, 1990 Cri.L.J. 1001 [Para 12]
Mr. Shailesh H. Bajaj Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., 2006(2) Goa L.R. 23 [Para 13,19]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT:- Rule.

2. By consent heard forthwith.

3. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 31-10-2008 of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding the Order dated 11-11-2008 of the learned J.M.F.C. issuing process against the Petitioner/Accused under Sections 494 and 495, I.P.C.

4. For the purpose of this petition, we proceed on the assumption, and, I repeat the word assumption, that the Petitioner/Accused got married to Renee Ann McDonald on 3-7-1991 in New Zealand, and thereafter got married to Monalisa Faleiro Coelho on 15-5-1997 in Margao, Goa. Of the second marriage with Monalisa Faleiro Coelho the Petitioner has a son, born in 2004. After the civil marriage was solemnized in Margao the Petitioner and Monalisa Faleiro Coelho resided in U.K. and over the years the fact of the first marriage came to the knowledge of the said Monalisa Faleiro Coelho.

5. The complaint was filed under Sections 494 and 495 by the mother of the said Monalisa Faleiro Coelho. No list of witnesses was filed. The said Monalisa Faleiro Coelho was also not examined but after recording the statement on oath of the complainant, the said mother of Monalisa Faleiro Coelho, the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused for the said offences. That order was challenged before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision.

6. Several submissions have been made by Shri. M. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The first submission is that the complaint by the mother of the second wife was not maintainable under Section 494, I.P.C. in view of Section 198(3) of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Learned Counsel has further submitted that the complaint and the statement on oath of the complainant had not spelt out the ingredients of the offence under Section 495. Shri. Teles has further submitted that in support of the complaint, the complainant had not filed any list of witnesses as required under sub-section (2) of Section 204 of the Code and as such no process could have been issued against the accused and in this context, learned Counsel has referred to two decisions, one of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fakirappa Vs. Shiddalingappa (2002 Cri.L.J. 1926) and the other of this Court in the case of Bhiku Yeshwant Dhangat and others Vs. Baban Maruti Barate and another (2001 Cri.L.J. 295) : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1437]. In both the aforesaid decisions of this Court as well as of Karnataka High Court it has been held that the order issuing process could be quashed in the absence of the names of witnesses. In fact, in Fakirappa Vs. Shiddalingappa (supra) it has been held that the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 204 Cr.P.C. is mandatory.

7. As far as non compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 204 is concerned, Shri. Dessai on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant has relied on two other decisions of this Court in the case of Vashu Gokaldas Kukreja Vs. Meena Vashu Kukreja and another (2004 Bom.C.R. 734) : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1719] and Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs. Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2006 Cri.L.J. 3114) : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1560]. This Court in the case of Vashu Gokaldas Kukreja Vs. Meena Vashu Kukreja and another (supra) referred to the decision of this Court in Bhiku Yeshwant Dhangat and others Vs. Baban Maruti Barate and another [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1437] (supra) and observed that the decisions of this Court in the case of Pramila Mahesh Shah Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation (2002(2) Mh.L.J. 100) : [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1852] was not considered and after considering some other decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts concluded that it was the consistent view of this Court that the requirements of Section 204(2) of the Code were not mandatory but directory inasmuch as failure to submit the list before process was issued was a curable defect and this could be corrected at an appropriate time. In Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs. Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) this Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 254(1) of the Code and with reference thereto it was observed as follows:-

"There is no doubt that sub-section (2) of Section 204 of the Code is meant to safeguard the interest of the accused persons against undue harassment at the hands of unscrupulous litigants. The insistence on filing a list of prosecution witnesses before the issue of process to the accused is mainly for that purpose. In other words, the intention is to assure that no person is summoned to stand his trial without the Court first satisfying itself that there is sufficient ground to issue a summons or a warrant, as the case may be, against accused persons and about the witnesses to be produced in support of the case of the Complainant. In a proper case, the Complainant would be entitled to file even an additional list of witnesses".

8. In the light of the decisions of this Court in Vashu Gokaldas Kukreja Vs. Meena Vashu Kukreja and another [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1719] (supra) and Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs. Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1560] (supra) the third submission made on behalf of the Petitioner needs to be rejected as the provision of sub-section(2) of Section 204 of the Code has been held to be directory, the defect of non filing being curable at a subsequent stage.

9. As regards the first submission, it may be stated that Section 198 of the Code provides for prosecution of offences against marriage and sub-section (1) thereof provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences under Chapter XX of IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved of the offences. Clause (c) of the proviso below sub-section(1) of Section 198 which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows:-

"Where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under Section 494 or 495 of the IPC(45 of 1860) is the wife's complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father's or mother's, brother or sister, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood marriage or adoption".

10. Shri. Teles, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused contended that the aggrieved person could be the first wife or her father or her mother, etc. who could file a complaint and not the second wife or her father, mother, etc. as contemplated by clause (c) has placed reliance on the case of Ujjagar Singh Numberdar and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh and another (1985(1) Crimes page 111) wherein a Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the second wife is not the aggrieved party and it is only the first wife who is aggrieved party and only she was competent to file a complaint under Section 494 IPC, if she so desired.

11. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in coming to the above conclusion placed reliance in the case of Jarnal Singh Vs. Sh. Kuldip Bakhsi, Advocate, wherein it was held that the second wife does not fall in the category of aggrieved persons as envisaged in Section 198 Cr.P.C.

12. Shri. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1/Complainant has no quarrel with the proposition of law as laid down in the said case of Ujjagar Singh Numberdar and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh and others and learned Counsel has conceded and in my view rightly and fairly, that the mother of the second wife could not have filed the complaint under Section 494, IPC as she was not an aggrieved person but learned Counsel contends that the complaint under Section 495, IPC could have been filed by either the second wife or her mother, father, etc. as contemplated by Clause (c) of the proviso and in this context learned Counsel has placed reliance on a case of Revanasiddaswamy H. M. Vs. State (1990 Cri.L.J. 1001) wherein the Karnataka High Court held that the second wife or her father or any of her relatives could have filed such a complaint under Section 495. In this case Gayatridevi was the second wife and it was held that "according to Section 495 it is Gayatridevi, who is aggrieved by the act of A.1, she is competent person to file the complaint or her parents, brothers, sisters or near relatives. But the complaint was filed by the father of the first wife Suman. Therefore, I think that there is some force in the contention advanced by Mr. Basavarya learned Counsel for the petitioner". In the light of the decision of Ujjagar Singh Numberdar and others Vs. Harbhajan Singh and others (supra) the first submission made on behalf of the Petitioner needs to be accepted. It follows therefrom that the complaint by the mother of the second wife was not maintainable in view of clause (c) below the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 198 of the Code.

13. However, Shri. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused has submitted that no ingredients of Section 495 were made out by the complainant, and, therefore no process could have been issued against the Petitioner/Accused. Learned Counsel further points out that it is the second wife who ought to have stated before the Court whether the Petitioner/Accused had concealed from her the first marriage and in the absence of any such averments either in the complaint or in the statement of oath of the complainant process could not have been issued against the accused under Section 495, IPC, and in this context Shri. Teles has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Shailesh H. Bajaj Vs. Sesa Goa Limited and another (2006(2) Goa L.R. 23) wherein this Court stated as follows:-

"The object behind Section 200 of the Code is two fold. First, it is to safeguard innocent people. It is necessary for the Magistrate to satisfy himself by recording the statement on oath of the complainant and his witnesses to find out the credibility of the complaint and take a decision thereon as regards issuance of process. In this context reference could be made to Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others. (1998)5 SCC 749, wherein it held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. Second, to find out the seriousness of the offences so that if necessary police could be ordered to investigate the same since the Code allows the Magistrate to direct the investigation and submission of report".

14. On the other hand, Shri. Dessai, learned Counsel on behalf of the complainant then relied upon the observations of the revisional Court and submitted that from the correspondence produced by the complainant, the mother of the second wife, it was clear that the second marriage was got through because the Petitioner/Accused concealed the first marriage to Monalisa Faleiro Coelho, the daughter of the complainant. Learned Counsel further submits that the complainant's deposition read with the correspondence exchanged between the first wife and the second wife disclosed that the necessary ingredients of Section 495 were prima facie proved.

15. Section 495, IPC reads as follows:-

"Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".

16. Needless to observe the basic ingredient of an offence under Section 495, IPC is concealment of the fact of the earlier marriage. An offence under Section 495, IPC is committed by concealing the fact of former marriage from the person with whom subsequent marriage is performed. The complaint in this case has not been filed by the second wife but as already noted by the mother of the second wife and apparently because the second wife is working in U.K. and has a son to look after and possibly for that reason she was also not cited as a witness. The entire prosecution is sought to be piloted by the mother alone. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in para 11 of the Judgment that the complainant had alleged that Monalisa Faleiro Coelho, her daughter was not aware of the first marriage with the accused and that she learnt about it in 2004 that the first marriage of the accused was solemnized from one of their common friends in U.K., and, therefore the evidence prima facie disclosed that the accused contracted the second marriage by suppressing the first marriage from Monalisa Faleiro Coelho and that the evidence also prima facie establishes ingredients of Section 495, IPC. In para 13 of the Judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that in the case at hand, the accused had not disclosed about his first marriage to Monalisa Faleiro Coelho and she in good faith married the accused on a belief that her marriage is valid. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further observed that since the accused had already married when his first wife was living and his first marriage was not dissolved under the law of marriages and thus, the second marriage with Monalisa Faleiro Coelho was void and thus she would be an aggrieved wife.

17. At the time of hearing of this petition, the statement on oath recorded of the complainant was read with able assistance of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and all that the complainant has stated which is of some relevance is that "...the name of his first wife is Renee Ann McDonald ..." We obtained marriage certificate by post. The said marriage certificate was of the accused and Renee Ann McDonald. Upon seeing the marriage certificate we were shocked. My daughter Monalisa Faleiro Coelho contacted the said Renee Ann McDonald. "Earlier, we were not knowing that the accused was married to another woman in New Zealand. However, we knew that the accused was in New Zealand for some time. My daughter Monalisa Faleiro Coelho could not come to India to take action against the accused and also because she has to look after her minor son".

18. What is being pointed out on behalf of the complainant, by the learned Counsel is the Email letter dated 23-7-2004 written by the second wife Monalisa Faleiro Coelho to the first wife wherein she is stated to have written to her that "I married Herculano in 1997 on the understanding that he had not previously been married".

19. This Court in the case of Mr. Shailesh H. Bajaj Vs. Sesa Goa Limited and another (supra) had stated that the object behind Section 200 of the Code is two fold. First, it is to safeguard innocent people. It is necessary for the Magistrate to satisfy himself by recording the statement on oath of the complainant and his witnesses to find out the credibility of the complaint and take a decision thereon as regards issuance of process. The second, to find out the seriousness of the offences so that if necessary police could be ordered to investigate the same since the Code allows a Magistrate to direct the investigation and submission of report. As already stated, the complaint has not been filed by the second wife, and it is difficult to say at this stage whether she would be coming to depose in the complaint filed by her mother. A statement such as "earlier we were not knowing that the accused was married to another woman in New Zealand" is a vague statement and would not be sufficient to prove prima facie the ingredient of Section 495, IPC. That statement would not amount to concealment of the first marriage to the second wife, that being the most essential ingredient under Section 495, IPC. Not only the second wife Monalisa was not examined in support of her letter dated 23-7-2004, that letter was also not referred to by the complainant in her statement on oath. The best person who could have made a statement that the first marriage was concealed by the Petitioner/Accused is the second wife herself. The statement on oath made by the complainant which has been reproduced herein above is nothing short of hearsay and on the basis of such a statement, in my view, no process could have been issued against the Petitioner/Accused under Section 495, IPC.

20. In view of the above, the complaint under Section 494 having not been filed by the first wife or her father, mother, etc. as specified in Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 198, and the complainant having failed to prove the basic ingredients of Section 495, IPC, process issued against the accused for the said two offences ought to have been quashed and set aside. The manner the complaint is framed and filed in the absence of the second wife, will only waste time of the Court. Consequently this petition deserves to succeed. The orders of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the complaint dismissed under Sections 494, 495 IPC.

21. At the request of the learned Counsel on behalf of the complainant/respondent no.1 the operation of this Judgment is stayed for a period of six weeks. For the present, the Petitioner/Accused is not required to attend the Court of J.M.F.C.

Ordered accordingly.