- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, Ekta Roy against the order of the learned court below dated 27.7.2006 by which her petitions for discharge stood rejected along with other co -accused persons.
(2.) THE petitioner has been arrayed as an accused alongwith other accused persons allegedly having married with accused NO.1, Ran Vijay Prasad Deo during the lifetime of complainant O.P. NO.2, Poonam Singh. Cognizance was taken against the petitioner and others and they were summoned to face trial in complaint Case No. 781 of 2004. The complainant has examined herself alongwith witnesses in support of the allegations. When the case was fixed for framing of charge, three petitions were preferred by the petitioner and the other co -accused persons under Section 227/245 Cr.P.C. for their discharge on the ground mentioned in the petition. Rejoinders were filed by the O.P. NO.2. The learned court below having heard the petitions and rejoinders to pass the impugned order, refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C. He further discussed the provisions under Section 245 Cr.P.C. According to the learned lower court the present petitioner was to be charged under Section 494/109 IPC. As such the present petition.
(3.) MR . Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has no knowledge about the previous marriage of co -accused with the complainant, which admittedly took place in the year 1988. It is further submitted that as per allegations, her marriage with co -accused took place at Delhi on 1.11.1996, during which period the O.P. NO.2 was not living with the co -accused. According to the learned counsel the petitioner, she has no knowledge that co -accused Ran Vijay Deo was earlier married, she got married with him under "Arya Samaj" at Delhi. Therefore the complicity of the petitioner under Sections 494/109 IPC could not be made out.;