Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.: - The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 17.12.2014 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur who dismissed the revision petition directed against the order dated 12.11.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya, vide which the petitioners were summoned under Section 494, 120-B IPC in a complaint case filed by respondent no.1.

2. Rajinder Kaur was married to Bhupinder Singh on 13.07.2008. She had alleged that on 06.08.2008, she was turned out of the matrimonial home after being beaten up. Her parents made efforts to rehabilitate her but the accused refused to keep or rehabilitate her. In June, 2012 the complainant and her parents came to know from reliable source that Bhupinder Singh had solemnized second marriage with Gurpreet Kaur d/o Paramjit Singh during the subsistence of his first marriage. A complaint was given to the SSP. No action was taken and thereafter, the complaint was filed under Section 494, 109, 120-B IPC.

3. The complainant examined eight witnesses and on the basis of preliminary evidence led before the Court, it summoned all the accused namely the husband, his parents and other relatives. The petitioners challenged the summoning order before the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The revision was dismissed. They have now filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and have pleaded that complainant was earlier married to Sukhwinder Singh, who had filed a divorce petition on the ground that Rajinder Kaur had performed second marriage with the petitioner no.1 during the subsistence of her first marriage and District Judge, Jalandhar , vide judgment dated 18.10.2010 dissolved the first marriage of Rajinder Kaur with Sukhwinder Singh and had observed that sufficient evidence was led to prove that Rajinder Kaur was married to Sukhwinder Singh and the fact was that she married Bhupinder Singh (petitioner no.1 here) when her marriage with Sukhwinder Singh was subsisting. It was pleaded that the complainant had married petitioner no.1 in a fraudulent manner during the subsistence of her marriage and the present complaint was a counter blast to the earlier FIR got registered by petitioner no.1 against respondent no.1 and the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 was a void marriage.

4. Notice was given to the respondent-complainant who has appeared and filed reply. It was pleaded that there was no valid marriage between the complainant and Sukhwinder Singh. It was pleaded that the complainant along with her parents was residing in village Thakri whereas Sukhjit Singh, her brother was murdered by his cousin Avtar Singh. There were threats and pressure for compromise in that case and apprehending danger to their lives, she and her family members shifted to Jalandhar and took the house of Surjit Singh (father of Sukhwinder Singh) on rent in November 2006 and stayed there for almost a year. It was pleaded that the parents of the complainant were working and in their absence Sukhwinder Singh used to make advances and proposed marriage but she refused. It was pleaded that parents of Sukhwinder Singh were also pressurizing her to marry Sukhwinder Singh and she was kidnapped on 17.10.2007 and taken to a Gurudwara and made to sign some papers and some photographs were taken in the wedding attire. It was pleaded that there was no consent for marriage and the contents of FIR were incorrect. It was pleaded that the case registered by petitioner no.1 was pending trial.

5. The State in its reply pleaded that a complaint was given by respondent no.1 which was inquired into and on the basis of the statement recorded therein, no offence was made out and thereafter respondent no.1 had filed a complaint. It was pleaded that FIR had been registered against the culprits on the strength of the statement so recorded and on the basis of the inquiries conducted by them.

6. The matter was referred for settlement before mediation as both the par