MCRC/44184/2020 of MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020

O R D E R

This is the first application filed under Section 439 ofCr.P.C. by the applicant – Mukesh S/o. Lakshman @ Laxminarayan,who has been arrested by Police on 16.9.2020 in connection withCrime No.195/2018, Police Station Jaora City, District Ratlam for theoffence punishable under Section 420, 467 and 468/34 of the IPC.

As per prosecution story, the complainant – Jitendrasubmitted a written complaint in Police Station Jaora City on16.9.2020 against the present applicant Gayatribai, Nageshwar, andOmprakash @ Prakash alleging that with the common intention theyperformed his marriage with Gayatribai in Jaora Court on 9.9.2020but after 5-6 days of the marriage, Gayatribai fled away from hishouse with all her belongings. He gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the presentapplicant for this marriage. He inquired about Gayatribai from theapplicant but he threatened him for his false implication in the rapecase. Accordingly, the police have registered the case against thepresent applicant under the aforesaid offences. During theinvestigation, the police have recovered the stamp papers andarrested the present applicant, Gayatribai, Nageshwar andOmprakash and recorded their statements u/s. 27 of the EvidenceAct. According to them, they have distributed the amount ofRs.1,50,000/- amongst themselves.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that theapplicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant is incustody since 16.9.2020 and the trial may take time to conclude. Hehas only introduced Gayatribai to the complainant for marriage andthereafter, he does not know whereabout of Gayatribai. He is alsonot aware of the past antecedents of Gayatribai, hence he is entitledto bail.

Learned Panel Advocate appearing for therespondent/State opposes the prayer by submitting that the applicanttook Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant and got performed themarriage of Gayatribai with the complainant through Notary who isnot authorised to perform the marriage. The applicant has signed onthe marriage agreement as a witness, therefore, he is not entitled tobail.

I have perused the case-diary. The complainant met withNageshwar for his marriage. Thereafter he got introduced Gayatribaiand Omprakash with Nageshwar and performed their marriage on9.9.2020. Gayatribai is missing since 14.9.2020 from the house of thecomplainant and she has also threatened the complainant for hisfalse implication in the rape case.

Not only the accused persons who have conspired inperforming the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notarywho executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible inthis case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. Heis not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents.Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriageagreement to the complainant, then the present offence would nothave been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases offorged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the LawDepartment of the State is required to look into these matters as tohow the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselvesin executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc,which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute thedivorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued tothe Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type ofdeed, failing which their licence would be terminated. Let a copy ofthis order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law Department ofState of M.P. For taking action in the matter.

However, without commenting anything on the merits ofthe case, subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) by theapplicant in the trial Court, he shall be enlarged on bail and upon hisfurnishing, a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees FiftyThousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all suchdates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during thependency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumeratedunder section 437(3) Cr.P.C. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- sodeposited by the applicant be kept in the FDR in any nationalisedbank fetching maximum rate of interest and the same shall bedisbursed after the conclusion of the trial.

Before releasing the applicant from the custody the jailauthorities are directed to medically examine him in order to rule outthe possibility of COVID -19 infections and shall comply with thedirection given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No.1/2020.

C.C. as per rules.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) V. JUDGE

-Alok/Digitally signed by Alok Gargav Date: 2021.01.02 15:32:49 +05'30'