The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not quash a complaint if the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offense or make out a case against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners through the medium of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashment of the criminal proceedings in a complaint titled 'Rekha Devi v. Jia Lal & Ors.' pending disposal before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff) Bani, (hereinafter called Trial Court for brevity) in which process under Section 494/109 and 120-B RPC has been issued against them besides other accused. The proceedings have been sought to be quashed for the reason that the petitioners had no role whatsoever, in the 2nd marriage of accused/respondent Jia Lal with Reva Devi respondent No. 2 as alleged by respondent No. 1/complainant Rekha Devi that her husband contracted 2nd marriage with her and that the petitioners have indulged in a criminal conspiracy for the commission of offences of bigamy. It has been alleged that it is a misuse of the process of court and the proceedings are required to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

2. Pursuant to notice the objections have been filed by the respondent No. 1/complainant asserting therein that she is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4 Jia Lal who during the subsistence of her marriage illegally contracted a second marriage with respondent no. 2 Reva Devi in connivance with the petitioners. It was submitted that respondent No. 4 Jia Lal committed offence of bigamy in connivance with petitioners under a criminal conspiracy, as such, it cannot be said that the process of Court is being misused in any manner rather it is in the interest of justice that the petitioners who committed the offences against the answering respondents are dealt with in accordance with law and punished to be brought to justice.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the Trial Court on 19.02.2010 against 12 persons including Jia Lal and the petitioners herein asserting that she had got married to the respondent-Jia Lal as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in village Mandhota Tehsil Bani on 25.06.2004 and out of their wedlock a son was born on 01.01.2006, however, her husband neglected complainant and her son and refused to pay the maintenance and subjected them to cruelty on the demands of dowry, as he wanted to contract 2nd marriage with respondent-Reva Devi. It was alleged that during subsistence of her marriage, her husband had contracted 2nd marriage with said Reva Devi about a month back with the help of other co-accused including petitioners, as such, they have committed offences punishable under sections 494/109/120-B RPC deliberately and intentionally. It was prayed to punish them for the commission of these offences.

4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate after recording statement of complainant and her witness Dharam Chand, took cognizance of the commission of offences punishable U/Ss 494/109/120-B against all the accused including the petitioners, vide order dated 19.02.2010.

5. Aggrieved of this order the petitioners have filed the instant petition Under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the complaint and the proceedings thereof.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this court already in 561-A No. 44/2010 titled 'Tilak Raj & Anr. v. Rekha Devi & Ors.' and in CRMC No. 45/2014 titled 'Kanta Devi v. Rekha Devi' has been pleased to quash the proceedings qua the petitioners therein and on the bedrock of parity, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and prayed that the petition be allowed. He has further argued that the petitioners were just alleged to have attended the Barat of the main accused and therefore, cannot be said to have been involved in the commission of any offence for which process have been issued against them in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 1992 (3) RCR 534 titled Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar lal & Ors. wherein it has been held that the person who has participated in the alleged second marriage cannot be held liable for any criminal action. It was finally prayed that the p