IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-17546 of 2009 Date of decision : July 06, 2009 Amarjit Kaur ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. BS Saini, Advocate for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) by complainant Amarjit Kaur. The complainant filed criminal complaint against Surinderjit Singh and respondent Nos. 2 to 8 alleging that the complainant was married with Surinderjit Singh. The latter filed a divorce petition which was allowed. The petitioner, however, preferred an appeal against the divorce decree within a limitation period on 10.1.2003 and informed Surinderjit Singh about filing of the appeal. Inspite thereof, Surinderjit Singh performed second marriage with Darshana Devi respondent No. 2 whereas the other respondents also participated in the said second marriage although they were also aware of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree of divorce. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala vide order dated 24.8.2006, Annexure P/1 ordered summoning of Surinderjit Singh only as accused under section 494 IPC but refused to summon the remaining accused i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 8 herein. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Sessions Court. The revision petition stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Criminal Misc. No. M-17546 of 2009 -2- (Adhoc), Patiala vide judgment dated 8.1.2009. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. There is no proper evidence on record to reveal even prima facie that respondent Nos. 2 to 8 were aware of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree of divorce. Respondent No. 2 performed marriage with Surinderjit Singh after his marriage with the petitioner stood dissolved by decree of divorce. The petitioner informed Surinderjit Singh telegraphically about the filing of the appeal. However, respondent Nos. 2 to 8 were not informed by the petitioner or anybody else about the filing of the appeal by the petitioner against the decree of divorce. Consequently, it cannot be said that respondents Nos. 2 to 8 were aware of the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree of divorce. There is, therefore, no illegality in the orders of the courts below so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. It may also be noticed that the petitioner has already availed of the remedy of revision petition before the Sessions Court. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to file second revision petition. The instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is nothing but a second revision petition. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 06, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'