YASHWANT BHAVDU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners were accused on the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 - Original complainant U/s 494 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. , basically alleging that accused No. 1 Devidas had committed bigamy by marrying accused No. 2 Kotibai @ Kantibai. Accused No. 3 is father of Devidas the husband. Accused No. 4 is a mother of Devidas. All other accused Nos. 5 to 19 are relatives who alleged to have been present on the date of marriage i. e. 2.3.1990 at Negaon, Tq. and Dist. Dhule.

(2.) Admittedly, by an order dated-25.3.1996 petitioners Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 have been deleted. In the result, the petitioners who are relatives of the husband and second wife are challenging the order of issuance of process by the Revisional Court for the first time. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (J. M. F. C.), Parola by its order dated-5.8.1993 had rejected the complaint itself. However, the Revisional Court by setting aside the said order has issued the process against all the accused U/s 494 of I. P. C.

(3.) After perusal of the statements of Shivaji and Atmaram recorded by J. M. F. C. and even of the complainant, one thing is very clear that the complainant had no knowledge of the marriage and/or any performance of such marriage. Even these two witnesses nowhere stated that they witnessed the second marriage in question. They only got information and they were present after some time at the relevant place. There is no reference made even by these two witnesses against all the Petitioners basically other relatives of the husband and second wife. In the complaint also only vague statements have been made against all these petitioners.