IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1136 of 2009 PANKAJ JHA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 26.3.2010. Heard Sri Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The contention of the learned counsel is confined to only one ground that the facts stated in the Complaint Petition may constitute an offence under Section 494 of the Penal Code. The order of cognizance which is sought to be quashed through the present petition is dated 29.2.2008 which was passed by S.D.J.M.,Munger in Complaint Case No.1185C of 2007(Trial No.3108 of 2008), it is indicated by the impugned order that the petitioners were summoned for other offences also. What this court proposes to do is that the court below shall consider the provisions of Section 494 of the Penal Code and should thereafter, consider the evidence which may be brought before him under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C at the time of proceeding to frame a charge under Section 246(2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate shall keep the position of - 2 - law in its mind that keeping a concubine punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code could be constituted only when a void marriage has taken place. The attention of the court was drawn to the statement of Paragraph-17 of the Complaint Petition which states that the petitioner had kept a lady as his concubine. This may not be constituting the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. This is simply for the guidance of the court so that it could decide the issue when the same is agitated before it by the petitioners, at the stage of Section 246(2) of the Cr.P.C. This petition is dismissed with the above directions and observations. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )