CHANDDHAWAN Vs. JAWAHARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The High Court in allowing the miscellaneous petition filed by the first respondent has said that in view of the contradictions which go to the root of the case including the jurisdiction of the trial court to take cognizance and proceed with the impugned complaint, the continuance of the proceedings on the basis of the impugned complaint before the trial court at Amritsar would certainly amount to the abuse of the process of the court.

(3.) The two grounds for arriving at this conclusion are that (1) the appellant had lodged the first information report before the police on 30-3-1989 and under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the marriage between the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was solemnised at Greater Kailash, New Delhi in February 1989 quite contrary to the allegations under the present complaint and (2) Vijay Bharti, one of the persons, stated to have performed the second marriage has filed an affidavit dated 7-5-1990 before the court stating that he did not perform any such marriage. The complainant had emphatically stated before the High Court that the documents relied on by the respondents are not genuine, no such first information had been lodged by the appellant before the Police ,Station, NOIDA, Ghaziabad and that Vijay Bharti has also not sworn the affidavit produced in court. The objection was rejected by the High Court stating that the specific averments made in the petition have not been contradicted by the complainant by filing the reply.