MAIBAM RENUBALA DEVI Vs. MOIRANGTHEM DINORA SINGH,
LAWS(MANIP)-2019-9-17
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on September 20,2019

Maibam Renubala Devi Appellant
VERSUS
Moirangthem Dinora Singh, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MV MURALIDARAN,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. L. Padmanabh, learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr. L. Lokendro Singh and Mr. R.K. Priyokumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Brief Case of the Petitioner:
(2.) The respondent being a complainant filed Criminal (Complaint) Case No.2 of 2014 is a close friend of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1. They have no love affair. The petitioner No.2 who is accused No.4 is the lover of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1. The accused No.3, the mother of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 arranged for marrying her daughter to another person against the interest of petitioner No.1/accused No.1. On 30.06.2013 the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 stealthily came out of her parental home and stay at the house of respondent/complainant. The parents of the respondent/complainant treated the said event of staying by the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 at their house as an elopement. After consulting to the parents of the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 who are accused No.2 and 3 performed a ceremony of Heithil-Leithinba (a customary engage ceremony) and fixed for marriage between the respondent/complainant and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in the month of November, 2013 without consent. The respondent/complainant expended money for the marriage by constructing house, buying clothes and eatable things and also printed invitation card. He purchased T.V. and DVD set and gave to the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 for bringing them as Sridhan (Awunpot) items. While doing so, the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 eloped with the petitioner No.2/accused No.4 and lived together as husband and wife. On 21.11.2013 the respondent/complainant filed a Criminal (complaint) case No.65 of 2013 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal for the offences U/s 34/120(B)/418/500/504/506 and 493 IPC against the present petitioners and parents of the petitioner No.1. Again on 10.01.2014 the respondent/complainant filed a criminal case No.2 of 2014 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoubal U/s 120-B/406/418/500/504/496 and 34 IPC against the present petitioners and the parents of the petitioner No.1 on the same facts and allegation without explaining why the respondent filed the Criminal case twice on the same allegations. And the delay of filing Criminal case No.2 of 2014 was not explained. After due proceedings of criminal case No.2 of 2014 on 15.12.2016, Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge U/s 120(B)(1)406/504 IPC against the accused No.1 and 4 without considering the case of complainant/respondent is a Civil in nature case and whether there is prima facie evidence that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences or not?. And the main accused person No.2 and 3 who have agreed and ensure to marry the accused No.1/Petitioner No.1 to the complainant/respondent have been already discharged. The accused No.1 and 4 filed a Criminal Revision Case No. 1 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Thoubal against the said order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate thereby framing charge under section 120(B)(1)/406/504 IPC against the petitioners. On 20.3.2018, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the Criminal Revision Case No.1 of 2017. Hence this Criminal Petition filed before this Court. Objections raised by the Respondent:
(3.) The petitioner No.1 was eloped and married to the petitioner No.2 during the subsistence of a marriage contract between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent after performance of Waroipot ceremony between them which is unlawful in the eyes of law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.