G.K. SHARMA, J.— This is a petition u/s. 482, Cr.P.C. filed against the order dated 22nd June, 88, by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners u/ss. 494/109/495/109. IPC.

2. Mr. S.L. Yadav, counsel for petitioner No. 4 prayed that the case may not be heard by this bench, as by the order of this Court, cases pertaining to him are not to be heard by it.

3. Petitioner No. 4 Prahlad to whom, Mr. Yadav represents, is also represented by Mr. Shital Das advocate, and also the petition on behalf of Prahlad petitioner, has been filed by Mr. Shital Das. So, as petitioner Prahlad is properly represented by Mr. Shital Das, there is no question of sending the case to other bench.

4. Mr. Shital Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mst. Mamta was married to Rajesh on 28th June, 82. Then, the allegation of Mst. Mamta is that on 16th Sept., 86, she was beaten up by Rajesh and her in-laws and then thrown out of the house. She came back to her fathers house, and thereafter, came to know that on 15th Sept, 86 Rajesh had married one Asha Mathur in court. So, a report was lodged in the police on 17th Sept., 86 u/s 498, IPC. On this report the police investigated the case and submitted a challan which is said to be pending in the trial court. It was further contended that on 23rd Sept, 86 another report was submitted in the police, and a case u/s, 420, 494 & 495 IPC. was registered and the matter was investigated. A challan was submitted on that report also against Rajesh and the present petitioners. A petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. was also moved by the petitioners in this Court, which was decided on 11th Dec, 87, whereby the case u/s 494, IPC being non cognizable offence, was bifurcated from that challan. Thus, in view of the order of this Court, while bifurcating the case u/s. 494, IPC the learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint u/s. 494 IPC, which was filed by Mst. Mamta on 28th Jan, 87. The learned Magistrate proceeded with that complaint, recorded the statement of Mst. Mamta u/s. 2C0 and that of her witnesses, u/s, 202, Cr.P.C. After perusing the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners u/ss. 494/109 and u/ss. 495/109, IPC, which has been challenged in this petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners during arguments, referred to the statement of Mst. Mamta which was recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. while investigating the FlRs lodged by her or by her father. The statement of Mst. Mamta recorded in another challan case was also brought to my notice, and it was argued after reading all these statements that Mst. Mamta has not stated a single word about the petitioners in those statements, and that she has not stated that these petitioners had abated Rajesh to contact another marriage with Asha Mathur. So this argument was that there is no prima facie case against these petitioners proving that they had any hand in Rajeshs marriage with Asha or that they had abated Rajesh for the second marriage. It was also argued that there is no evidence that the petitioners had any knowledge about the second marriage or that they had concealed the first marriage of Mst. Mamta with Rajesh. Thus, the crux of his entire argument was that there is no prima facie case, and specially, it was argued that in the complaint dated 28th Jan., 87, these petitioners have not been named even. .So, according to him the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance against them.

6. The learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 argued that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after satisfying himself that there was a prima facie case for summoning the accused person, and that no revision lies against an order of taking cognizance. It was also argued by him that even in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C the High Court should not interfere, if there is a prima facie case, who further added that if the learned Magistrate was sati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document