The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of prima facie evidence and judicial consideration before issuing process or taking cognizance of an offence.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. Both the petitioners by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as by invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "Cr.P.C."], have challenged the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Court No.4, Ahmednagar, in R.T.C. No. 351 of 2011, on 16.08.2012, whereby process was issued against petitioner no.01 in Cri. W.P. No. 1440 of 2015 (original accused no.01) for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and petitioners in Cri. W.P. No.1461 of 2015 (original accused nos.06 and 07) for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Respondent no.01 herein is the original complainant. The complaint is filed against the petitioner in Cri.W.P. No. 01440 of 2015, who is original accused no.01, contending that she is the wife of the present complainant and during the subsistence of their marriage, she has performed marriage with petitioner no.01 in Cri.W.P. No. 01461 of 2015. Petitioner no.02 in Cri.W.P. No. 1461 of 2015 is the mother of petitioner no.01 therein. The complainant has alleged that the present petitioner - original accused no.01 had eloped from her house and joined the company of the complainant on 19th August 2003. Thereafter they got married. Consent by the parents of the wife was not there and, therefore, the couple could not return to their village. However, brother of the wife gave report to Sangamner Police Station, stating that the original complainant had abducted the sister and ravished her. On the basis of said report, the original complainant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 364 and 376 of the I.P.C. During the course of investigation of the said matter, the complainant was in custody for about 13 months. Even he was released on bail, he was not allowed to meet his wife. It was only assured to him that she is in safe custody of the parents and brother and it was also stated that she continued to be his wife. The parents and brother of the wife assured the complainant that his wife would return for cohabitation but asked him to go from their house at that point of time. However, it is stated by the complainant that after some months, he came to know that his wife got married to Sayyed Sohel Liyakat i.e. petitioner no.01 in Cri.W.P. 1461 of 2015 on 10th May 2007 in the hotel owned by the parents of the wife. It has been contended that despite knowledge that the original accused no.01 - wife was already married to the complainant, her marriage has been performed with original accused no.06 and, therefore, he contended that all the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 109 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

4. As some of the accused were residing beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar, postponed the issuance of process and took up the proceedings as contemplated under Section 202(2) proviso of the Cr.P.C. In that process, the complaint was sent for investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the report was received by the learned Magistrate on 09.02.2012. The report was considered and the complainant was further directed to lead evidence, if any. In pursuant to the evidence and other documents on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) issued process against accused no.01 for offence under Section 494 of the I.P.C. and against accused nos.02 to 07 for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., by his order dated 16.08.2012. The said order is under challenge in these petitions.

5. It will not be out of place to mention here that original accused nos.02 to 05 had approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.