IMPORTANT POINT
For summoning of an accused, prima facie case is to be made out on the basis of allegations in complaint and pre-summoning evidence led by complainant.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Leave granted.

2. The complainant is before this Court challenging the order dated 25.04.2023¹[Passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.11184 of 2021] passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior vide which the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri²[In Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2019] quashing the summoning order dated 12.03.2019³[Complaint Case bearing Case No.7798 of 2019] passed by the Trial Court was set aside as far as Section 420, IPC is concerned against the respondent no.1/Sharmila Das and Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC against the respondent no.2/Usharani Das and respondent no.3/Sangita.

3. Briefly the facts as available on record are that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent no.1 on 28.04.2018 in the presence of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Having come to know that on the date, the respondent no.1 had solemnized marriage with the appellant, she was already married and had not obtained divorce from her first husband, the appellant filed a petition⁴[Case No. RCSHM/34/2019] under Section 11 of the 1955 Act⁵[Hindu Marriage Act, 1955] before Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri (M.P.) seeking annulment of marriage between the appellant and the respondent no.1.

4. Subsequently, the appellant preferred a complaint⁶[The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri (M.P.) under Sections 495, 420, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC] against the respondent nos.1, 2, and 3 in which the Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2019, after recording preliminary evidence and being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, directed issuance of process against the respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, and against the respondent nos. 2 & 3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC.

5. The aforesaid order was impugned by the accused persons/respondent nos. 1 to 3 by filing Revision Petition⁷[Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2019] before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri which was partly allowed by the Sessions Court. The impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Magistrate was set aside to the extent of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the respondent no.1 and for the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 120-B of IPC against the respondent nos.2 and 3.

6. The appellant challenged the order of Sessions Court before the High Court. The same was upheld. It is against the aforesaid two orders, the appellant is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the parties namely the appellant and the respondent no.1 came in contact through a matrimonial site (name withheld) and thereafter meetings were held at Visakhapatnam on 09.03.2018 and 10.03.2018 in the presence of the respondent nos.2 and 3. The respondent no.1 was earlier married as was even disclosed by her on the matrimonial site. At the time of meeting the appellant was shown a smudged copy of the divorce order passed in favour of the respondent no.1 on mobile phone. On the document, the date could not be clearly seen as the copy of the order was not clear. It was stated that the order is pending signatures of the Judge. Thereafter, the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 28.04.2018. The respondents dishonestly misrepresented that they are not financially well, and thereby induced the appellant to part with Rs. 2 lakhs and bear the entire expenses of the marriage.

7.1 On 16.06.2018, when respondent no.1 visited the doctor for a checkup, she was found to be pregnant. She wanted to undergo an abortion, but when confronted by the appellant, the reason therefore she told that she had not yet obtained divorce from her previous marriage. The document which was shown to him on mobile phone was forged. This shows that the consent for marriage was obtained dishonestly. The appella