M.Wahajuddin - (1.) CRIMINAL Misc. Application No. 8206 of 1982, for final hearing, has been preferred by Smt.Kamla Kumari, while CRIMINAL Misc. Applications Nos.2986 of 1983, 8337 of 1983 and 2775 of 1981 have been preferred by Pan Singh and others, Uma Shanker and others and Hari Shanker and others respectively and are for admission. In all these cases a common question of law is involved, so they are disposed of together.
(2.) ONE of the points raised in them by tie concerned applicants is that section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act is ultra vires, and that section and Section 494, IPC read together are violative of the Constitution. Criminal Misc. Case No. 8206 of ]982 is for quashing the entire proceeding arising out of criminal case No. 496 of 1982, pending in the court of IV Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The case: is under Section 494, IPC. It would appear that the applicant has been summoned under Section 494, IPC, on a complaint of Mohan Lal, opposite parity. It, is maintained that the petitioner also filed a complaint under Sections 147, 323, 452 and 504, IPC against Mohan Lal and others and the accused persons in that case were summoned, and Mohan Lal has filed the complaint under Section 494, IPC just as a counterblast. In addition to that the vires of Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494, IPC, has been challenged. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 2986 of 1983, the prayer is for quashing the proceedings in criminal case no. 1143 of 1982, in which the applicants have been summoned under Sections 494 and 109, IPC on a private complaint filed by opposite party no. 1, who is the wife of applicant no. 1. It is maintained that the petitioner, which would mean petitioner no. 1, had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed, and he also filed a suit for the custody of the children under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act. It is, further, maintained that none of the applicants have committed any offence and that the complaint is vague. In addition to that it is further maintained that the provisions of Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494, IPC are ultra vires.
(3.) IN Criminal Misc. Case No. 8337 of 1983 there is a prayer for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 543 of 1979, initiated on the complaint of opposite party no. 1 Smt.Geeta Devi, wife of petitioner no. 1. It would appear that the applicants were summoned. Thereafter the opposite party no. 1 did not appear on 11-8-79 and it is urged that the applicants were discharged, but a fresh complaint has been filed and they have been summoned, which could not be done. In Criminal Case No. 2775 of 1981 there is a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings in criminal case No. 811 of 1980 and to quash the order of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 27 of 1981 and the order of II Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, allowing the cirminal revision No. 6 of 1980. It would appear that; the Magistrate summoned only Hari Shanker applicant no. 1, Sampi, applicant no. 10, and Brij Kishore, applicant no. 22, vide its order dated 10-11-1976. The II Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision No. 6 of 1980 vide its order dated 11-6-1980 directed that the Magistrate may consider the evidence against the rest of the accused persons, against whom the complaint has been dismissed. It would further appear that another criminal revision no. 27 of 1981 was preferred by Hari Shanker and that revision has been dismissed. All these orders are sought to be quashed.;