RENUKA Vs. LALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN his revisional jurisdiction the learned Sessions Judge quashed and set aside the order of learned Trial Magistrate issuing process again the respondent-accused Nos. 3 to 13 and it is the order of the learned Sessions Judge is questioned in this Criminal Revision Application.

(2.) IT may be stated that the petitioner Renuka married the accused no. 1 Dattaiam two years before the date of her complaint which she has filed on June 26, 1986 before the learned Trial Magistrate, inter alia alleging that the accused Dattaram married with the accused no. 2 Pramilabai and has, committed offence punishable under Section 49a of the Indian Penal Code and that the accused nos. 3 to 13 who are in relations of the accused nos. 1 and 2 have actively aided and abated the commission of and offence and as such liable to be punished under Sections 494 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The only ground which appears to have been pervailed upon the learned Sessions Judge to interfere with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in issuing process against the accused nos. 3 to 13 is that except the solitary statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate has not recorded the statements of witnesses. Vithal and Mukunda to find out a primafacie case to proceed against these accused. In absence of evidence of Vithal and Mukunda; in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, it is not possible to hold that a prima-facie case was made out against the accused nos. 3 to 13 for aiding and abetting the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) ON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has clearly fallen into an error in interfering with the order of issue of process against the respondents - accused Nos. 3 to 13 at that stage of the proceeding. It may be emphasised that the complainant has filed the list of witnesses naming Vithal, Balaji, Mukunda, Vishwanath and Shemrao as persons who were present at the time of ceremony of said marriage and who had informed her about the participation of these accused in the second marriage. The learned trial Judge was satisfied with the version of the complainant who has given list of witnesses in support of her version about the commission of the offence by the respondents. Indeed, it was, therefore, not obligatory on the part of the learned Trial Magistrate to examine each and every witness, listed by the complainant in the list of witnesses submitted alongwith the complaint for taking action against the accused for commission of offence under Section 494 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. That is a matter of evidence, which would be produced at the next stage of the enquiry or trial of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no evidence against the present respondents for the complainant showing primafacie case of issue of process against them for commission of the said offence. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain.