ORDER :

1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 211 of 2013 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. A complaint case was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and two other persons, namely, Nagendra Kumar Dadsena and Dr. Manju Sinha under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging therein commission of offence punishable under Sections 494, 191 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. The allegations made against the accused persons were that the complainant/respondent no. 2 was married to Nagendra Dadsena on 18.5.2006 in presence of other accused persons and there is one daughter out of their wedlock. During existence of first marriage, Nagendra Dadsena performed marriage with Dr. Manju Sinha at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur in presence of present petitioners where they signed a declaration form as witnesses on 11.5.2011 whereas, they were aware about the fact that the first wife of Nagendra Dadsena is still alive and marriage between them has not been dissolved. On such complaint, the statement of witnesses was recorded and thereafter, learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 20.5.2013 and registered the complaint case for commission of offence punishable under Sections 494, 191 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC against all the accused persons.

3. The present petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Court against the order of taking cognizance dated 20.5.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 471 of 2013 by the learned trial Court and the same was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 20.3.2014, which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present petitioners have been arrayed as accused only on the ground that they signed the declaration form as witnesses knowing well that the first marriage of Nagendra Dadsena is still in existence and the same has not been dissolved by the competent Court and even then they signed the declaration form. He would further submit that the mere knowledge on the part of petitioners of earlier marriage of co-accused would not tantamount to commission of offence under Section 120B of the IPC as they have not hatched any criminal conspiracy as provided under Section 120A of the IPC. He would also submit that there was no prior meeting of minds between the present petitioners and the other co-accused persons to commit an illegal act i.e. remarriage. Simply for being present in marriage and signing of mere declaration would not amount to any offence under Section 120B of the IPC as no criminal conspiracy can be attributed to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Chand Dhawan vs. Jawahar Lal and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 317, P.K. Narayanan vs. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142 and Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Karuppiah Servai and Others vs. Nagavalli Ammal, 1981 SCC Online Mad. 142.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the petitioners were well aware of the fact that Nagendra Dadsena is a married person, his first wife is still alive and his marriage has not been dissolved even then they participated in the marriage and signed the declaration form, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 120B of the IPC is made out. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshna vs. State and Others, 2015 SCC Online Del. 11482 and judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar and Others vs. Rasik Bihari Joshi and Another, 1999 (1) JLJ 41.

8. I have heard learned counsel for