The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the time of taking cognizance, the court is not required to meticulously marshal and examine the evidence. If the ingredient of an offence alleged is made out, the court must take cognizance and proceed with the case.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision under Section 397/401, CrPC, is directed against the order dated 02.07.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Udaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.608/2004 whereby the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and issued the process. Aggrieved of the order taking cognizance, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor and Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent complainant. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent No.2 complainant filed a complaint before the trial Court against the present petitioner and Smt. Panadevi for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC. The said complaint was sent to police for investigation under Section 156 (3) CrPC. After investigation, police filed challan against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. By order impugned dated 02.07.2004, the trial Court on perusal of the material placed before it by the police, prima facie came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. So far as non-petitioner in complaint Smt. Panadevi is concerned, proceeding against her came to be quashed by order dated 16.04.2004 by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.58/2004. It is alleged in the complainant that respondent No.2 married to the petitioner according to Hindu rites at Jodhpur. Her father gave the dowry according to his capacity. It is further alleged that initially she was treated well by the petitioner, but subsequently, a sum of Rs.2 lacs was demanded for the purpose of house from the complainant which she was unable to make good and, therefore, she was assaulted and abused. The petitioner came from Bikaner to Jodhpur and demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs. The complainant was not in a position to pay such a huge amount, therefore, she was assaulted. Her statement was recorded by the police under Section 161, CrPC, wherein she made similar statement in support of her complaint. Apart from her statement, in support of the complaint, one Madanmohan Soni, Dev Soni D/o Nawalkishore, Durga W/o Nawalkishore and Santosh D/o Nawalkishore also made statement before the police regarding demand of dowry by the petitioner from the complainant and alleged cruelty subjected to her by the present petitioner. There are number of witnesses who witnessed the marriage ceremony between the petitioner and complainant No.2, and they have clearly stated that the marriage was solemnized at Jodhpur in presence of various persons according to Hindu Rites.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and complaint is void. According to learned Counsel, the complainant earlier married to Manish Jain and marriage with Manish Jain was not dissolved according to law and, therefore, the marriage of the complainant with the present petitioner is void according to Hindu Marriage Act.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that there is over voluminous evidence that on 18.07.2002 the complainant married to the present petitioner in accordance with Hindu Rites and Saptpati in the presence of various persons at Narsinghdara Balaji Hanuman Temple, Jodhpur, whose statements have been recorded by the police according to Hindu rites and ‘Saptpati’. In her statement, the complainant no where stated that her marriage with Manish Jain continued on the date she married to the present petitioner. Be that as it may, there is sufficient evidence that the petitioner and the respondent had been living together as husband and wife and for all purposes after the marriage of the complainant-respondent with the pres