S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1675/09 SMT. SHEELA V. NAVRATAN @ RATAN PANWAR & STATE. DATE OF ORDER ::: 11/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. C. M. TOTLA, J. Mr. Bhrat Devasi, for Petitioner. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges cognizance and registration of the case vide Magisterial order dated 24.2.06 for offences of Sections 494, 406 and 120B IPC which order upheld by revisional Court vide judgment dated 28.7.09. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that offence of S.494 IPC is registered but no evidence of marriage much less evidence of necessary ceremonies. Argued that alleged second marriage is said to have taken place on 24.6.04 when complainant's father was present, still complaint lodged after about 16 months in October, 05. Vehemently submitted that petitioner initiated criminal proceedings for bigamy against complainant in July, 02 and as a counter to that case, these proceedings are initiated. Considering arguments, perused order of the learned courts below. A perusal of the orders of the learned Magistrate and also learned Sessions Judge discloses that respondent submitted a complaint before Magisterial court and learned Magistrate proceeding under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., in addition to complainant, examined three witnessesand then has taken cognizance for the offence of Sections 494, 406 and 120B IPC. In order of revisional Court also, is detailed mentioning of what the witnesses stated in course of inquiry, including of “saptpadi”. It seems that proceedings are very early stage and petitioner shall be having opportunity to raise objections whatever at the stage of framing of charge, so refraining from mentioning made or analyzing said facts, is not desirable. In above view of the matter, cognizance order cannot be said to be without any basis or prima facie without material. The petition is not entertainable. The same is dismissed. (C. M. TOTLA), J.