2. By consent heard forthwith.

3. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 31-10-2008 of the Additional Sessions judge upholding the Order dated 11-11-2008 of the learned I.M.F.C. issuing process against the Petitioner/Accused under Sections 494 and 495, I.P.C.

4. For the purpose of this petition we proceed on the assumption and I repeat the word assumption, that the Petitioner/Accused got married to Renee Ann McDonald on 3-7-1991 in New Zealand, and thereafter got married to Monalisa Faleiro Coelho on 15-5-1997 in Margao. Goa. Of the second marriage with Monalisa Faleiro Coelho the Petitioner has a son, horn In 2004. After the civil marriage was solemnized in Margao the Petitioner and Monalisa Faleiro Coelho resided in U.K. and over the years the fact of the first marriage came to the knowledge of the said Monalisa Faleiro Coelho.

5. The complaint was filed under Sections 494 and 495 by the mother of the said Monalisa Faleiro Coelho. No list of witnesses was filed. The said Monalisa Faleiro Coelho was also not examined but after recording the statement on oath of the complainant, the said mother of Monalisa Faleiro Coelho the learned Magistrate issued process against the accused for the said offences. That order was challenged before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision.

6. Several submissions have been made by Shri. M. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The first submission is that the complaint by the mother of the second wife was not maintainable under Section 494, I.P.C. in view of Section 198(3) of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973). Learned Counsel has further submitted that the complaint and the statement on oath of the complainant had not spelt out the ingredients of the offence under Section 495. Shri. Teles has further submitted that in support of the complaint. the complainant had not filed any list of witnesses as required under subsection (2) of Section 204 of the Code and as such no process could have been issued against the accused and in this context, learned Counsel has referred to two decisions, one of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fakirappa Vs. Shiddalingappa (2002 Cri.L.J. 1926) and the other of this Court in the case of Bhiku Yeshwant Dhangat and others Vs. Baban Maruti Barate and another (2001 Cri.L.J. 295) : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1437]. In both the aforesaid decisions of this Court as well as of Karnataka High Court it has been held that the order issuing process could be quashed in the absence of the names of witnesses. In fact, In Fakirappa Vs. Shiddalingappa (supra) it has been held that the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 204 Cr.P.C. is mandatory.

7. As far as non compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 204 is concerned. Shri, Dessai on behalf of the Respondent Complainant has relied on two other decisions of this Court in the case of Vashu Gokaldas Kukreja Vs. Meena Vashu Kukreja and another (2004 Bom.C.R. 734) : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1719] and Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs. Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2006 CrLL.J. 3114) : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1560], This Court in the case of Vashu Gokaldas Kukreja Vs. Meena Vashu Kukreja and another (supra) referred to the decision of this Court in Bhiku Yeshwant Dhangat and others Vs. Baban Maruti Barate and another [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1437] (supra) and observed that the decisions of this Court in the case of Pramila Mahesh Shah Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation (2002(2) Mh.L.J. 100) : [2002 ALL MR (Cri) 1852] was not considered and after considering some other decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts concluded that it was the consistent view of this Court that the requirements of Section 204(2) of the Code were not mandatory but directory inasmuch as failure to submit the list before process was issued was a curable defect and this could be corrected at an appropriate time. In Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs. Bicholi