The trial court is required to examine the evidence only for the limited purpose of deciding whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused.

Hima Kohli J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC praying inter alia for set-ling aside the order on charge dated 02.07.2013 passed by the learned ASJ in respect of case FIR No.67/2011, lodged under Sections 376/420 IPC.

2. Before dealing with the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, a brief reference to the relevant facts of the case leading to the registering of the FIR is considered necessary.

3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the complainant/prosecutrix had alleged commission of offences of cheating, rape and bigamy against the petitioner. She had stated that in the year 1994, she was married to one Shri Sushi I Kumar and from out of the said wedlock, she had a daughter. However, Shri Sushil Kumar had expired in the year 2010. Soon thereafter, the accused, who had a friendly relationship with the dec-eased husband of the prosecutrix, had approached her and proposed to marry her on the representation that he was unmarried. The prosecutrix claimed that relying on the statement made by the petitioner/accused, she had accepted the proposal and both the parties had got married on 11.05.2010 in a Buddhist Temple situated on Mandir Marg, Near Birla Mandir at New Delhi as per Hindu customs. The prosecutrix has stated that the petitioner/accused had also filled up the marriage form in his own handwriting and the said marriage had been registered on 17.05.2010 in the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Dehradun Uttrakhand. Thereafter, both the parties had cohabited as husband and wife. However, on 04.06.2010, the complainant came to know that the accused was already married to one Smt. Sunrta and when she had confronted him with the said marriage, he had maintained that he was not married to the said lady. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner had concealed the factum of his previous marriage and later on, he had threatened her, thus compelling her to file the complaint.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint received from the prosecutrix, the subject FIR was registered and investigation was undertaken by the IO. While passing the impugned order on charge, the learned ASJ took notice of the fact that after the investigation was conducted, a zero FIR was registered and sent to Dehradun for further investigation and thereafter the matter was received back from Dehradun and finally, it had culminated in filing of the charge-sheet. After considering the submissions of counsels for the parties and the material accumulated during the investigation, including the statements of the parties and other witnesses, the trial court was of the opinion that the petitioner herein is liable to be charged for the offence under Sections 420/376/495 IPC.

5. Aggrieved by framing of the aforesaid order on charge, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition stating inter alia that the trial court had failed to appreciate the fact that there was no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had married the proseciitrix and therefore, the provisions of Section 495 IPC were inapplicable. Learned counsel states that the learned ASJ had overlooked the fact that the petitioner and the complainant had known each other for several years even prior to the demise of the husband of the proseciitrix. He further states that the trial court did not take into consideration the statement of SI Narender Singh, Police Station Dalanwalu, Dehradun or of Ms. Sunita, the petitioner's wife.

6. Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate urges that there is no evidence of the petitioner having committed the offence of bigamy for the reason that there was no legal or valid marriage that had been solemnized between the petitioner and the proseciitrix and the evidence that was gathered by the police in the course of the investigation, do not substantiate the allegations levelled by the proseciitrix to the said effect. He contends that for a Hindu marriage to be valid an