M.M Punchhi, J. (Oral):— This petition for revision has arisen in this manner; Kartar Singh complainant filed an application under S. 494 lead with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused respondents. He levelled an allegation that his daughter Balbir Kaur was married to Resham Singh, accused-respondent and during the subsistence of that marriage, the said Resham Singh had married another woman named Labh Kaur ard the said offence had been abetted by the remaining accused-respondents. In support of his case, he examined himself, his daughter Balbir Kaur and two more witnesses namely Manjit Singh P.W 3 and Baljinder Singh, P.W 4. The later two stated that Marriage of Resham Singh had been performed with Labh Kaur in their presence. Thereupon the learned Magistrate summoned the accused-respondents in the case. Service could be effected on only two of them namely Resham Singh and Dalip Singh, who made an application before the learned Magistrate Praying before him that the charge against them was groundless and they be discharged under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate then by a reasoned order accepted the contention and discharged not only the applicant accused, but also others who had yet to be served in the case. The view taken by the learned Magistrate was that both the witnesses to the occurrence had no where stated as to how the offence of bigamy was complete without detailing due ceremonies of Anand Karaj. No ceremony worth the name was mentioned by them in their statements. And since solemnization of the second marriage was not proved, the accused were ordered to be discharged.
2. On the revision petition filed by the complainant before the Additional Sessions Judge, the order of the learned Magistrate was upset. The learned revisional Court took the view that the learned Magistrate had, without recording any evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed the order practically reviewed his summoning order by discharging the accused. It is to challenge this order that some of the accused have filed this petition.
3. The language of section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is plain and specific that the Court has power to discharge the accused at any stage if it considers that charge to be groundless. Such power is not at all conditional on the recording of any evidence or the appreciation thereof. Such a discharge under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot imply review or revision of the earlier order summoning the accused. See in this connection Moti Thadhani v. Bimal Prasad Jain 1979 C.L.R Punjab and Haryana 199. Thus the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is obviously counter to Moti Thadhani's case (supra) and is thus unsustainable.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not touch the merits of the case. Undoubtedly, if he had examined the merits of the case, he could as well take a different view and set aside the order of discharge. Now to ask him to review the evidence would be to promote litigation. Since the matter is here present, I have chosen to do the exercise myself. On going through the order of the learned Magistrate it seem plain that both the eyewitnesses had no were stated about the essential ceremonies of the marriage known as Anand Karaj. That marriage by Anand Karaj has essential ceremonies of four Lavans made by the groom followed by the bride around the holy Guru Granth Sahib amidst the chanting of the recitations of the hymns composed by the fourth Guru, Gurn Ram Dass are the accepted essential ceremonies. See in this connection my decision in Darshan Singh v. The State of Punjab 1980 P.L.R 243. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out to me even a word from the statements of the witnesses which could show that any ceremony was referred to by the P.Ws Their saying that Anand Karaj was pereformed is hot enough. Thus the view taken by the learned Magistrate on the facts of the present case is unexceptional.
5. And lastly to crown it all the complaint at the instance of Kartar Singh was wholly incompetent in view of section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was the first wife alone who was aggrieved against the said marriage. She alone was competent to institute the complaint and not her father. Thus the proceedings otherwise are wholly without jurisdiction.
6. For the view I have taken, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set saide and the proceedings are quashed.