The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper interpretation of the complaint and legal provisions, and the consideration of prima facie case in issuing process under Section 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

1. Present petition has been filed by the original complainant invoking the Constitutional powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application No.08/2015, whereby the said revision came to be allowed and the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahata on 30.12.2014 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.400/2014 later on registered as Regular Trial Case No.394/2014 for issuing process under Section 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, came to be set aside.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. S.M. Zaware for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. B.V. Virdhe for respondent No.14-State.

3. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and 10 to 13, was absent on 04.02.2020. He was absent on earlier occasion also, i.e. on 15.01.2020. On that day, submissions on behalf of petitioner were heard and the matter was kept on 04.02.2020 by giving an opportunity to learned Advocate for respondent No.2 to make submissions. Since he was absent, there was no question to adjourn the matter for his sake.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioner-original complainant that the learned Trial Judge has adopted proper procedure as well as appreciated the facts of the case. In fact, when it was found by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, that some of the accused persons were not residing within the jurisdiction of the said Court, directions were given for inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and the report was called. The process came to be issued after considering the contents of the complaint, verification and the report submitted by police under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.. Under these circumstances, the learned Revisional Court ought not to have interfered with the said impugned order. In fact, after the observation that the marriage between petitioner-wife with respondent No.1 was still subsisting, the husband had performed second marriage with the respondent No.2 on 21.03.2006; wrong observations are thereafter made that as she was residing in the same house shows that she was a consenting party to the same. Learned Revisional Court failed to consider that how the wife could have given consent for the second marriage of the husband. The delay in filing the complaint has been unnecessarily taken as fatal at the said stage, when it could have been explained by the complainant at the time of trial. Further, the learned Revisional court went wrong in coming to the conclusion, that there is nothing in the complaint to show that accused Nos.3 to 9, who were not family members of the husband and second wife were having knowledge about the existence of the first marriage with the complainant. The Revisional Court has considered those points, which could not have been considered at the said prima facie stage even by the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge therefore went wrong in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

5. At the outset, it is to be noted that the present respondents, who had filed the revision application before the Revisional Court, had challenged the order of issuing process on the ground that certain factors which ought to have been considered by the learned Magistrate, were not considered. They had prayed for setting aside the order of issuing process. No prayer in clear terms was made for dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.. But it would be the natural consequence if the order of issuing process is set aside.

6. It is required to be seen, as to whether the contents of the complaint, verification and the report under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was sufficient to hold that prima facie case has been made out for issuing process. Complainant had come with a case that she got married to accused No.1 on 23.06.2004 and their said relationship as husband and wife still existing. She had stated