[2026:RJ-JP:170]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 683/2016 Radha Bai w/o Shri Ramesh Chand D/o Shri Ramswroop, R/o Village Khatoli, District Kota (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through PP.

2. Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Nand Lal R/o Village and Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dev Krishna Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP, Mr. Rahul Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

06/01/2026

1. The criminal misc. Petition is filed against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases No.1, Kota (Raj.), (hereinafter, 'Revisional Court'), whereby, respondent No.2 criminal revision against the order taking cognizance under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') was allowed and order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itawa, District Kota, (hereinafter, 'Trial Court') dated

27.03.2012 was set aside.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Revisional Court, while admitting the revision petition of the respondents, did not consider the fact that there was enough material available on the record to indicate that the respondent No.2 entered into a second marriage despite being already married. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court, after recording the statement of the petitioner and other witnesses, took cognizance against the respondents under Section 494 of the IPC. However, the learned Revisional Court, without assigning any cogent reasons, set aside the cognizance order passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order passed by the Revisional Court was passed without taking into consideration the report of the Superintendent of Police, which categorically states that the respondent No.2 entered into a marriage with the lady. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the matter of Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors., (2015) AIR (SCW) 1199, whereby the Apex Court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.09.2015 may be set aside, and the accused may be summoned for trial under Section

494 of the IPC.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent No.2 justify the order passed by the learned Revisional Court.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. It is to be noted that there was no material before the learned Trial Court substantiating the fact that the petitioner has entered into a second marriage. The learned Revisional Court, after considering the law laid down in 1977 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 79 Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. Thakur Das & Ors., 1979 AIR (SC) 848 Lingari Obulamma Vs. L. Venkata Reddy and Others, 1992 Cr.L.R. (SC) 191 Santi Deb Berma Vs. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi, 1994 Cr.L.J. (All.) Urmila Vs. The State of UP, 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 372 Prem Mittal (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005 Cr.L.J. 3847 Surekha Murdangia Vs. Ramahari Murdangia and Ors., and 2005 Cr.L.J. 4719 Gopal Lekharu Vs. State of Assam and Anr., rightly held that it is necessary at the stage of taking cognizance to place on record evidence to prove that the second marriage was solemnized after following the rituals.

6. The Revisional Court, after perusing the record, found that no such evidence was placed on record to conclusively establish that respondent No.2 entered into a second marriage. Even if it is presumed that respondent No. 2 was living with a lady, the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is not made out.

7. Therefore, considering the aforesaid fact, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Revisional Court quashing the cognizance order passed by the learned Trial Court.

8. The present revision petition is dev