1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as “ the Code”] against the order dated 30.3.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna (MP) in Criminal Revision No.10/2008, directing the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda to take cognizance under sections 494/109 and 120B of IPC against the six accused persons including, present petitioners on a private complaint filed by respondent No.1 Bhoori Bai in that Court.

2. In brief, the facts of the case is that a private complaint filed by complainant Bhoori Bai(herein respondent No.1) before the Court against all six accused persons, including present petitioners for commission of offences punishable under sections 494/109 and 120B of IPC, to the effect that she was married with co-accused Santosh seven or eight years back in the village Ashakhedi according to Hindu rites and rituals. From their wedlock, one son, namely, Aditya aged about four years was born. After some time of the marriage, accused persons including, the present petitioners used to harass her and demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- . Her husband is not keeping her with him and threated to marry again if she did not fulfill demand of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioners along with other co-accused hand in gloves conspired to marry Santosh with co-accused Rekha Bai. Co-accused Narayan Singh is father of co-accused Rekha Bai. Co-accused Preetam and Mahesh (herein petitioners No. 2 and 3) are brothers of co-accused Santosh and their father is Raghuveer Singh (herein petitioner No.1). The marriage of co-accused Santosh took place in Ujjain knowing the fact that the complainant and co-accused Santosh have already married each other. Their marriage is still in existence and no divorce took place between them. Despite the fact of first marriage, the petitioners along with co-accused conspired and abetted second marriage between co-accused Santosh and Rekha.

3. Learned trial Court after recording evidence of the complainant and of the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC passed an order dated 11.12.2007 in Criminal Case No.977 of 2007, for taking cognizance only against co-accused Santosh (husband of respondent No.1 Bhoori Bai). Against the aforesaid order, then the respondent No.1 Bhoori Bai filed a revision for taking cognizance against remaining accused persons including present petitioners before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda vide order dated 1.2.2008 allowed Criminal Revision No.10/2008 partially by modifying the order passed by trial Court and directed the trial Court to take cognizance against petitioner No.1 Raghuveer Singh and two other co-accused persons, namely, Narayan Singh and Rekha Bai under sections 109 and 120B of IPC and further directed to register a complaint against them and to try them according to law.

4. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 Raghuveer Singh preferred a revision before this Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 227/2008. This Court vide order dated 15.5.2008 allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 1.2.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda in Criminal Revision No.10/2008 and directed the trial Court to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to five co-accused persons including present petitioners No. 2 and 3 against whom the revision has been filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.10/2008 vide order dated 30.3.2010 directed the trial Court to take cognizance against all the accused persons,including present petitioners under sections 494/109 and 120B of IPC. Hence, this revision.

5. It is submitted by Shri Katare, learned counsel for the petitioners that as per provision of section 398 of the Code, the Sessions Judge cannot take cognizance by invoking the revisional powers under secti