CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM)
Decided on: 06.03.2019

Roop Lal
….Applicant

Versus
State of Punjab and others
….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present : Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for the applicant.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this appeal is for setting-aside the judgment dated

26.09.2016 passed by the trial Court vide which respondents No.2 to 5

were acquitted of the charge under Sections 120-B, 380 and 497 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) (though one of the co-accused

namely Ashok Kumar was convicted for the charge framed against him

under Section 497 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo 02 years

rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of

payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 01

month).

Counsel for the applicant at the very outset, has stated that

said Ashok Kumar had filed an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal

No.503/2016 vide Filing No.7793/2016 titled as ‘Ashok Kumar vs State

of Punjab and another’, challenging the aforesaid judgment of

conviction dated 26.09.2016 under Section 497 IPC and the same was

allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment

dated 12.12.2017 (which is taken on record as Mark ‘X’) and even,

1 of 14
10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 2

Ashok Kumar was acquitted of the charge framed against him under

Section 497 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant – Roop Lal,

who is a NRI and is residing abroad had field the complaint that

marriage between him i.e. the complainant and accused No.6 was

solemnized on 23.11.2010 at village Kingran Chauwala, Jalandhar and

it still subsists and out of this wedlock, 03 children namely Kajol

(daughter), Jaspreet and Gurpreet (sons) were born. The complainant

was residing in Italy to earn his livelihood since 2007 and he is a Green

Card holder, which was issued by the Italian Government. The

complainant came back to India on 28.09.2010. Due to illicit relations

of Charanjit Kaur (accused No.6) and Ashok Kumar (accused No.1), the

relations between the complainant and accused No.1 to 5 were strained.

The day before the occurrence, there was a dispute due to illicit

relations between accused No.1 and accused No.6 and a Panchayat was

also convened, in which accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 threatened that ‘KI

TU VIDESH JANA CHAUHNDA HAI KE NAHIN, ASIN TERA EHO

JEHA INTEZAM KARANGE KE TU KADE V VIDESH JANN DE

KABIL RAHENGA, JE SADE NALL MATHA LAYEA TA JANO

MAAR DENGE.’ At that time, Sarpanch Jaspal Ram, Balbir Ram,

Mohinder Kaur, Jagat Ram and other respectables of the village were

also present. On 04.11.2010, early in the morning approximately 04:00

AM, accused No.6 without informing anyone left the house of the

complainant and she took passport, Green Card, Rs.20,000/- in cash,

one wrist watch, one mobile Nokia and 250 Euros without the consent

of the complainant. Regarding this fact, a DDR was also lodged with

2 of 14
10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 3

P.S. Phillaur on 19.11.2010. The doubt of the complainant converts into

belief, when on 22.11.2010 at about 02:00 PM, the complainant and

Balbir Ram saw accused No.1 and accused No.6 going together for

taking bus at the Bus Stop. The complainant and Balbir Ram tried their

best to catch them, but they could not succeed. Accused No.1 and

accused No.6 are still living together with accused No.3 namely

Harminder Pal at some unknown place and Ashok Kumar had full

knowledge that accused No.6 is the legally wedded wife of

complainant. All the accused after conspiring with each other

committed theft and have also eloped accused No.1 and accused No.6

by abiding each other. Thus, the present complaint has been filed.

In the preliminary evidence, the complainant Roop Lal

examined himself as CW1, Balbir Ram as CW2, Jaspal as CW3,

Mohinder Kaur as CW4, Jagat Ram as CW5 and thereafter, closed his

preliminary evidence on 22.11.2015 and vide order dated 09.01.2013,

all the accused were ordered to be summoned for the offence

punishable under Sections 380/497/120-B IPC and on appearance,

accused – Ashok Kumar, Kishore Kumar, Harminder Pal, Kesro, Bhagat

Ram and Charanjit Kaur in the Court, they were admitted to bail and

after the pre-charge evidence of the applicant was closed and finding a

prima facie case under Sections 120-B, 380 and 497 IPC, the accused

were charge-sheeted on 27.01.2016, to which they did not plead guilty

and claimed trial.

In order to prove his case in after-charge evidence, the

complainant examined Mohinder Kaur as CW1, Jagat Ram as CW2 and

Balbir Ram as CW3 and thereafter, after-charge evidence of the

3 of 14
10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 4

complainant was closed by Court vide order dated 09.02.2016.

Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the entire incriminating evidence

was put to them to which they pleaded their false implication.

The trial Court, thereafter, on the basis of the evidence

available on record and charge framed against the accused persons

recorded a finding that the complainant has failed to prove and

substantiate the allegations of the charge framed under Section 497, 380

and 120-B IPC and acquitted them, however, Ashok Kumar was found

guilty of offence punishable under Section 497 IPC as noticed above.

The operative part of the judgment dated 26.09.2016, is

reproduced as follows:-

“16. In view of the above evidence and version of
the complainant following point of determination come out
from the present complaint:-

Whether the accused committed an offence
punishable under Section 380/497//120-B of Indian
Penal Code?

17. In order to prove his version complainant
examined Mohinder Kaur, who come into the witness box
in before charge/after summoning evidence as CW-1, in
which she stated that Roop Lal has gone abroad i.e. Italy 7
years ago. The Italian Government has issued him a Green
card to Roop Lal. Roop Lal has come to India on
28.09.2010. Accused Charanjit Kaur and Ashok Kumar
has illicit relation with each other. Due to these illicit
relationship Roop Lal has strained relations with accused
no.1 to 5 prior to incident raised in present case,
panchayat was convened regarding the illicit relationship
of Charanjit Ashok Kumar. Respectable members of

4 of 14
10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 5

locality were also present there. Accused Charanjit Kaur
has went away from house as 7th October, 2010 again said
04.11.2010 accused Charanjit Kaur has went away from
house and while she going from house she took one mobile
phone, one watch, one passport of Roop Lal, Green Card
and Rs.20,000/- 250 Euro with her. She was gone without
informing anyone at about 4:00 AM. Thereafter, they
moved a complaint to PS Phillaur. During the cross-
examination this witness stated that there is no speaking
terms with the accused for the last 20/25 years. Further
they had filed an application with regard to the present
occurrence at PS Phillaur and Lassara. Roop Lal is at
abroad and not come to the court for depose. Further
Ashok Kumar came to the house of complainant to make
illicit relation with Charanjit Kaur accused no.6. Roop lal
went abroad on new passport got issued by him.

After that Jagat Ram come into the witness box as
CW-2 in after summoning/before charge evidence and
stated that marriage of Roop Lal was solemnized with
Charanjit Kaur on 23.11.2000. Roop Lal came to India in
the house 2010. Accused Charanjit Kaur and Ashok
Kumar has illicit relation with each other. Further accused
threatened to Roop Lal before Panchayat. Further the
accused stollen passport, green card, one wrist watch,
Rs.20,000/- in cash, 250 Euro belong to the Roop Lal and
Charanjit Kaur still residing with the Ashok Kumar
accused. During the cross-examination this witness stated
that Bhagat Ram is his real brother. Further denied that he
deposed falsely on the instance of complainant. Further
Roop Lal complainant is his son. Further there is no copy
of passport allegedly stolen by Charanjit Kaur accused.
Further this witness cross examined in length but nothing
fruitful come out from his evidence.

After that Balbir Ram come into the witness box as

5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 6

CW-3 in after summoning/before charge evidence and
deposed on the step of CW-1 CW-2, which need not be
repeated here to avoid repetition. During the cross-
examination this witness stated that Roop Lal his brother
but they are residing separately. Further Roop Lal went to
abroad after one year of marriage. Further he has seen
Ashok Kumar and Charanjit Kaur on 04.11.2010 going
together.

18. In order to prove his complaint, in after charge
evidence, complainant examined Mohinder Kaur alleged
power of attorney, who come into the witness box as CW-1
for cross-examination, wherein this witness stated that
Roop Lal went to abroad after one year of her marriage.
Relation between Roop Lal and Charanjit kaur was having
illicit relation with Ashok Kumar accused. Further there is
no speaking terms with the accused for a long time. A
written compromise was effected between the parties.
Further he has not seen the accused at the time of alleged
theft. Further he has not filed an application against
accused with regard to attempt of theft.

After that Jagat Ram come into the witness box as
CW-2 for his cross-examination after framing of charge,
wherein this witness stated that Roop Lal is in Italy. He
has seen the passport of Roop Lal, but he do not know
copy of the same on record or not. Further Charanjit kaur
and Ashok Kumar residing together some unknown place.
Further he had seen Charanjit Kaur and Ashok Kumar
together but he cannot tell the date and time. Further
denied that accused no.1 to 5 had not committed any
offence. Further he do not know about the maintenance
litigation between Charanjit Kaur and Roop Lal.

After that Balbir Ram as CW-3 come into the witness
box for his cross-examination after framing of charge,
wherein this witness stated that Roop Lal is his real

6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 7

brother but they are residing separately. Further he has
seen the green card, Euro and passport of Roop Lal.
Further he had seen many times Ashok Kumar and
Charanjit Kaur residing together at Dhaka Colony.
Furtehr denied that the accused had not committed any
theft. Further there is no speaking term between the
accused and complainant for last many years. Further he
cannot tell the date when he has seen the accused
Charanjit Kaur and Ashok Kumar together.

19. Now, Ld. Counsel for the complainant stressed
upon the fact that as per the above evidence led by the
complainant. It is fully proved on record that accused no.1
to 6 after criminal conspiracy committed theft with regard
to the articles belong to complainant. Further it is not
disputed on record that marriage of complainant was
solemnized with accused no.6 Charnjit Kaur. Moreover,
fact regarding the marriage between complainant and
Charanjit Kaur is admitted on the record. Therefore,
relation between the parties are admitted and proved on
record. Now, complainant alleged that Ashok Kumar
accused no.1, who is also cousin brother of complainant
knowingly and intentionally that Charanjit Kaur accused
no.1 is a legal wedded wife of Roop Lal complainant made
illicit relation with her. Further the complainant went
abroad i.e. Italy after sometime of his marriage and when
he came back the above relationship between Ashok
Kumar and Charanjit Kaur accused came to his
knowledge. As discussed above marriage between
complainant and accused no.6 Charanjit Kaur is admitted.
Further as per the evidence led by the complainant i.e.
Mohinder Kaur CW-1, Jagat Ram CW-2 and Balbir Ram
CW-3, it has been specifically stated by the above
witnesses that Ashok Kumar Accused no.1 has illicit
relation and committed adultry with Charanjit Kaur

7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 8

accused no.6. Further the above witnesses deposed that
Charanjit Kaur accused no.6 is residing with Ashok
Kumar at Dhaka Basti after left the house of the
complainant. The fact that Charanjit Kaur accused no.6 is
residing separately from the complainant is also admitted.
Moreover, Charanjit Kaur complainant has filed an
application for under Domestic Violence Act and under
Section 125 Cr.P.C, copy of the same placed on record by
the accused himself as Ex.A-1 and Mark-B. The above
document shows that the accused no.6 Charanjit Kaur
residing separately from the complainant and filed an
application for maintenance against him. Further the
accused has also placed on record copy of petition under
Section 13 of HMA 1955 for desolation of marriage by
decree of divorce titled as “Charanjit Kaur Vs. Roop Lal”
as Mark-A. The above document corroborate the fact of
the complainant that Charanjit Kaur accused no.6 is still
legal wedded wife of Roop Lal complainant. Therefore, the
fact regarding the relationship between Roop Lal and
Charanjit Kaur accused as husband and wife is still in
existence is proved on record. Further complainant and
other evidence led by the complainant deposed on similar
line that accused Ashok Kumar having illicit relation with
Charanjit Kaur accused no.6. Moreover, during the cross-
examination counsel for the accused has not specifically
denied the above fact, not even put suggestion and denied
the allegation leveled against Accused no.1. Moreover,
Balbir Singh CW-3 stated that he along with complainant
saw accused Charanjit Kaur and Ashok Kumar going
together number of times. Further remaining witnesses
examined by the complainant also deposed that Charanjit
Kaur accused no.6 residing with Ashok Kumar accused.
Mohinder Kaur mother of the complainant also stated that
number of time Ashok Kumar accused came to the house of

8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 9

Charanjit Kaur to make illicit relation and on her
objection left her house. No doubt Ld. Counsel for the
accused argued that there is no such witnesses, who had
seen the Ashok Kumar accused no.1 with Charanjit Kaur
accused no.6 in objectionable situation. But, as argued by
complainant that direct evidence on the said fact that
Ashok Kumar accused no.1 and Charanjit Kaur accused
no.6 made illicit relation is not possible. No doubt, Ld.
Counsel for the accused has also argued that as per
evidence on record, complainant and accused are residing
separately and they have no speaking terms for the last
many years, so, it cannot be possible that accused Ashok
Kumar came to the house of complainant to make illicit
relation with accused no.6 Charanjit Kaur. But it has also
come into evidence that Roop Lal complainant along with
his family residing to the adjoin house of Mohinder Kaur.
So, there is waitage in the argument led by the Ld. Counsel
for accused. On the contrary, evidence of Mohinder Kaur
and other witnesses of the complainant and circumstances
on record corroborate the version of the complainant.
Further as per Section 497 of Indian Penal Code ”
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and
whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of
another man, without the consent or connivance of that
man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence
of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery. In the present
complaint in hand, it is proved on record that Charanjit
Kaur accused no.6 legally wedded wife of Roop Lal
complainant. Further as discussed above after leading
cogent evidence, the complainant has also proved on
record that Ashok Kumar accused no.1 committed adultery
with accused no.6 and as per the above provision of law
liable to be punished.

20. Further Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued

9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 10

that all the accused committed the theft of passport, green
card, wrist watch, one mobile nokia, 250 Euro and
Rs.20,000/- cash of complainant. But as argued by Ld.
Counsel for the defence/accused that there is no evidence
against accused no.2 to 5 that they are involved and after
making criminal conspiracy and committed theft of above
articles belonging to the complainant. Moreover, there is
no document on record to prove the ownership of above
articles. Further admittedly no one had seen when the
accused committed the alleged theft. Moreover, it is
version of the complainant that Charanjit Kaur accused
no.6 took the above article with her when she left the
house of the complainant, but there is no specific
allegation against accused no.2 to 5 with regard to alleged
theft and criminal conspiracy against the complainant.
Further as per the document and evidence led by the
complainant, accused no.6 left the house of complainant
on 04.11.2010 at about 4:00 am and no one saw her at the
time of committing alleged theft. No doubt, intimation
regarding the said missing of accused no.6 and articles
were given to the police by the complainant vide DDR
no.14 dated 19.11.2014 Ex.C-6. But there is no such
evidence on record that accused no.6 Charanjit Kaur
committed the theft of above articles belongs to the
complainant. Moreover, it has come into evidence that the
complainant Roop Lal went to abroad. The complainant
alleged that Roop lal went to abroad after got issue new
passport but admittedly there is no copy of said passport
newly got issued by the complainant or copy of passport
which was allegedly theft by the accused no.6. Moreover,
as discussed above there is no evidence that the accused
committed theft as alleged by the complainant. Therefore,
the complainant has failed to prove on record ingredients
of Section 380 and 120-B of IPC against all the accused.

10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 11

But as discussed above it has proved on record that Ashok
Kumar accused no.1 made illicit relation with Charanjit
Kaur accused no.6 knowingly that she is wife of Roop Lal
complainant. Accordingly, Ashok Kumar accused no.1 is
found guilty under 497 IPC. There is no cogent evidence
against remaining accused to punish them under Section
497/380/120-B of IPC and they are acquitted from the
charge framed against them under Section 497/380/120-B
IPC.

21. The accused no.1 is ordered to be taken into
custody. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of
sentence.”

Counsel for the applicant has argued that it has come in the

evidence of the appellant, who is residing abroad that he is settled in

Italy for the last 07 years from the date of recording his statement and

has acquired a Green Card and when he returned back to India on

28.09.2010, he found that the accused Ashok Kumar and Charanjit

Kaur had developed illicit relations with each other and thereafter, the

accused – Charanjit Kaur, who is wife of the complainant left the

matrimonial house on 07.10.2010/04.11.2010 and has taken away one

mobile phone, one watch, passport, Rs.20,000/- and 250 Euros and on

that pretext, he complaint was filed.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it has also

come in the evidence of CW2 – Jagat Ram that after the accused –

Charanjit Kaur, had stolen the articles, a Panchayat was convened. This

witness is father of the complainant – Roop Lal. It is further stated that

CW3 – Balbir Ram, brother of Roop Lal has also stated hat he traveled

abroad after 01 year of marriage and he had seen his wife – Charanjit

Kaur with Ashok Kumar. Counsel for the applicant has, thus, submitted

11 of 14
10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 12

that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence led by the

applicant had wrongly acquitted the respondents/accused.

After hearing the counsel for the applicant, I find no

ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the trial Court. The trial

Court has recorded a finding that after 01 year of marriage, Roop Lal

traveled abroad and never took care of his wife – Charanjit Kaur, who

was residing separately from the complainant – Roop Lal and for that

reason, she filed an application under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act of 2005’) as well as

under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which were relied

upon by the accused himself as Ex. A1 and Mark B and even, a divorce

petition was filed between the parties, therefore, it is apparent that the

present complaint has been filed by the complainant with a mala fide

intention by raising a finger towards character of his wife that she is

going with co-accused Ashok Kumar. Though, he failed to prove this

allegations by leading cogent evidence.

The trial Court has also recorded a categoric finding that

all the CWs have admitted that the applicant/complainant – Rooop Lal,

left India after 01 year of marriage and Charanjit Kaur was residing

alone. CW2, father of Roop Lal as well as CW3, brother of Roop Lal,

nowhere stated that they were taking care of Charanjit Kaur in absence

of Roop Lal and rather have levelled allegations that she was having

illicit relations with Ashok Kumar, which itself show that they also

were deposing on the line of Roop lal – applicant, who never wanted to

maintain his wife as nothing has come on record in the statement that

after he went to Italy, he made any effort to take his wife – Charanjit

12 of 14
10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 13

Kaur along with him as the evidence is totally silent that in the

intervening period of 06 years, he had ever given any monetary support

to her or tried to get her a VISA, despite the fact that he has obtained a

Green Card in Italy. This also demonstrates the mala fide on the part of

the applicant, who had abandoned his wife after his marriage.

It is own case of the applicant that Charanjit Kaur had filed

a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., to maintain herself as well as an

application under the Act of 2005, where she is asking for her right

from the applicant. Thus, on the face of it, Charanjit Kaur was left at the

mercy of God after Roop Lal traveled abroad and he had filed a false

and frivolous complaint, pointing a finger towards her character, show

that he wanted to escape his liability being husband of Charanjit Kaur,

though he was required to take care of her and provide all the

amenities.

It is admitted case of the applicant that even Ashok Kumar

who was held guilty by the trial Court under Section 497 IPC, stands

acquitted by the Lower Appellate Court in an appeal filed by him vide

judgment dated 26.09.2016, therefore, I find no ground to interfere in

the well-reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court in view of the

judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on

12.12.2017, even acquitting Ashok Kumar of the charge framed against

him under Section 497 IPC.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
06.03.2019
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

13 of 14
10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::
CRM-A No.2133-MA of 2016 (OM) 14

Whether reportable: Yes/No

14 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2019 21:18:31 :::