HARI OM Vs. SOORAJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 8.4.1992 passed by learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, in Criminal Revision No. 510 of 1991. By that order he has set aside the summoning order dated 2.8.1991 passed by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Hathras, in Criminal Case No. 515 of 1991.

(2.) A case under Sections 494/495/420/406 IPC was filed against the respondents with the allegations amongst others that the respondent No.2 being the wife of the Abhay Kumar has committed bigamy by marrying the complainant. Learned counsel has submitted that the learned Judge has entered into the evidence, weighed the evidence and disbelieved the witnesses during revision incoming to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. According to him learned Judge cannot assess the evidence while sitting in revisional court and the order is bad in law. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the ingredients of offence must be mentioned in the petition of complaint and in the absence of it no offence is made out against the respondents.

(3.) The learned Magistrate has examined the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. and issued process after finding prima facie case under the sections mentioned above. After going through the judgment of the learned Judge I find that he has considered the contradictions in evidence and some extraneous matter beyond the record in coming to the conclusion that no case has been made out against the respondents. Along with the affidavit, petition of complaint and the evidence of two witnesses examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. have been annexed. Learned counsel has referred paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint wherein it has been stated that Aur Nehayat Hi Sada Tareke Se Aaropak Va Abhiyukt No.2 Ka Vivah Sampanna Ho Gaya. He has submitted that rituals performed in that marriage were not mentioned. So the prima facie case under section 494, IPC was not established.