Anita Chaudhry, J. - (1.) The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 17.12.2014 (Annexure P -4), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur who dismissed the revision petition directed against the order dated 12.11.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, vide which the petitioners were summoned under Sec. 494, 120 -B IPC in a complaint case filed by respondent no.1.
(2.) Rajinder Kaur was married to Bhupinder Singh on 13.07.2008. She had alleged that on 06.08.2008, she was turned out of the matrimonial home after being beaten up. Her parents made efforts to rehabilitate her but the accused refused to keep or rehabilitate her. In June, 2012 the complainant and her parents came to know from reliable source that Bhupinder Singh had solemnized second marriage with Gurpreet Kaur d/o Paramjit Singh during the subsistence of his first marriage. A complaint was given to the SSP. No action was taken and thereafter, the complaint was filed under Sec. 494, 109, 120 -B IPC.
(3.) The complainant examined eight witnesses and on the basis of preliminary evidence led before the Court, it summoned all the accused namely the husband, his parents and other relatives. The petitioners challenged the summoning order before the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The revision was dismissed. They have now filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and have pleaded that complainant was earlier married to Sukhwinder Singh, who had filed a divorce petition on the ground that Rajinder Kaur had performed second marriage with the petitioner no.1 during the subsistence of her first marriage and District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 18.10.2010 dissolved the first marriage of Rajinder Kaur with Sukhwinder Singh and had observed that sufficient evidence was led to prove that Rajinder Kaur was married to Sukhwinder Singh and the fact was that she married Bhupinder Singh (petitioner no.1 here) when her marriage with Sukhwinder Singh was subsisting. It was pleaded that the complainant had married petitioner no.1 in a fraudulent manner during the subsistence of her marriage and the present complaint was a counter blast to the earlier FIR got registered by petitioner no.1 against respondent no.1 and the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 was a void marriage.;