Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PRAYER in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of complaint No. 8 dated 17.02.2010 (Annexure P -3) under Sections 109, 166, 167, 201, 218, 420, 427, 465, 467, 468, 471, 494, 120 -B IPC against the petitioners and four others by the complainant and the summoning order dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P -4), vide which petitioners No. 1 to 9 have been summoned as accused under Sections 109/166/167/201/420/465/467/468/471/494/120 -B IPC.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that respondent -complainant earlier filed complaint dated 07.11.2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'First complaint') under Sections 166/167/201/218/420/427/465/467/468/471/120 -B IPC against petitioners No. 1 to 3 and Suresh son of Sh. Nand Lal, Sunder Singh, Process Server and Ram Karan, Process Server, who are accused in the impugned complaint dated 17.02.2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Second complaint') as accused 11, 12 and 13 respectively. Except for Sections 109 and 494 IPC, all the offences were alleged to have been committed by them in the First Complaint. On consideration of the preliminary evidence led by the respondent -complainant in the First complaint, petitioner No. 1 and accused Suresh, Sunder Singh and Ram Karan were summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panipat, vide order dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure P -2). The First complaint was filed alleging therein that petitioners 1 to 3 harassed the complainant for not bringing sufficient dowry and bringing a Maruti car instead of Santro car, which they had expected. She was being taunted even for trifle matters. While she was admitted in hospital for her delivery, she was not taken care of by petitioners No. 1 to Her parents got her admitted in Jindal Nursing Home where she gave birth to a dead male child on 11.02.2005. She was discharged from hospital on 16.02.2005 but petitioners No. 1 to 3 refused to take her back in the matrimonial house. Despite various requests made by the complainant that she be taken back in the matrimonial house. She had been requesting them time and again to take her back in the matrimonial house. On 08.10.2007, petitioner No. 1, who is her husband, taunted her that he had already obtained a divorce from her. She immediately contacted an Advocate, who verified from the judicial records that an exparte judgment and decree dated 06.04.2007 had already been obtained by her husband -petitioner No. 1. The records further revealed that the concerned Process Servers, who were responsible for effecting service of summons on her, in active collusion and in connivance with petitioners No. 2 and 3, endorsed her refusal to accept summons in their report. On consideration of the preliminary evidence led, petitioner No. 1 and other three accused, except petitioners No. 2 and 3, were summoned by the Court to face trial vide order dated 05.05.2008.
(3.) THE Second complaint has been filed on 17.02.2010 not only against petitioners No. 1 to 3 but also against three sisters of petitioner No. 1 and their husbands. Apart from these, one Khem Chand, a cousin of the father of petitioner No. 1, has also been impleaded as an accused apart from Suresh, Sunder Singh and Ram Karan, the three accused in the First complaint. Petitioner No. 10, who is the second wife of petitioner No. 1, has also been impleaded as accused No. 14 and in this complaint, the initial allegation was with regard to obtaining of the ex -parte decree of divorce in connivance with the Process Servers Sunder Singh and Ram Karan on the basis the false statement and evidence given by Suresh. In the complaint, it has been alleged that subsequently, it has so happened and she has come to know that prior to obtaining the ex -parte decree of divorce, an ex -parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights was obtained by petitioner No. 1, which was again in connivance with the Process Servers. Applications were moved by her for setting aside the ex -parte decrees obtained under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), which were allowed by the Court vide order dated 25.03.2008. Against these orders, revision petition Nos. 2083 and 2084 of 2008 were preferred in the High Court, which were dismissed by a common order dated 07.04.2008. In this order, a direction was issued to initiate enquiry to determine the role of the Process Servers in helping petitioner No. 1 in obtaining ex -parte decrees. During the pendency of the trial before the Courts below in the petitions preferred under Sections 9 and 13 of the Act filed by petitioner No. 1, he unconditionally withdrew petition under Section 9 of the Act on 01.10.2008 and petition under Section 13 of the Act on 10.12.2009. This, it is alleged, was done on the basis of a criminal conspiracy hatched with common intention to get rid of complainant by fraudulent means as he had celebrated second marriage with accused No. 14 on 20.09.2007. It is alleged in this complaint that all the petitioners were hand in glove with each other and the decrees were obtained by playing fraud. As petitioners No. 2 to 9 had participated in the second marriage between petitioners No. 1 and 10, which was held on 20.09.2007, they had abetted petitioner No. 1 to celebrate second marriage with petitioner No. 10 and petitioner No. 10 also knew it very well that these decrees were secured by fraudulent means and that she had no right whatsoever to enter into wedlock with petitioner No. 1, thus, they were all liable not only for commission of offence under Section 494 IPC but for offence of fraud and cheating as well.;