1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 78 Of 2010 1. Shyamender Bhushan 2. S/O Late, Jagdish Prasad Kulbhushan S/O Shyamender Bhushan, Both R/O 217 Purva Deen Dayan, P.S. Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar ………………..Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand. 2. Smt. Naresh Kumari W/O Sardari Lal, R/O 15, virich villa Garden P.S, Kamkhal, District- Haridwar ……………..Respondents Shri S.K. Shandilya, Advocate present for the revisionists Shri G.S.Sandhu, Government Advocate, present for the State Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate present for respondent no.2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard (2) This revision is directed against the order dated 28.01.2010, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 457 of 2008, whereby said court has directed the trial court to frame charge, in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, 498A, 420, 493, I.P.C and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 2 1961, against accused Kulbhushan (petitioner no.2), and charge in respect of offences punishable under section 420 and 120B against petitioner no.1 Shyamender Bhushan. (3) Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that vide order dated 17.09.2008, the trial court (Chief Judicial Magisttrate, Haridwar) directed in Criminal Case No. 607 of 2002 State Vs. Kulbhushan and others that there is no material to frame against petitioner no.1 Shyamender Bhushan. However, the trial court ordered that charge, in respect of offence punishable under section 419 of I.P.C, shall be framed against accused Kulbhushan (petitioner no.1). It is argued on behalf of the revisionists that since the alleged marriage of Kulbhushan with the daughter of Naresh Kumari (respondent no.2) was admittedly illegal as the same is said to have taken place without dissolution of the first marriage Kulbhushan, as such no charge, in respect of offences punishable under section 493/494 of I.P.C and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, get attracted. It is also pointed out that in view of section 198 of Cr.P.C only aggrieved parties could have lodged complaint, in respect of offences punishable under section 493 /494 of I.P.C. (4) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists and after going through the relevant provision of law, this court is of the view the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law in directing the trial court to frame charge, in respect of offences punishable under section 498A, 493, 494 3 of I.P.C and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against accused Kulbhushan as the marriage between accused Kulbhushan and daughter of complainant was no marriage in the eyes of law. (5) Therefore, this revision is disposed of with the direction that the trial court shall frame charge, in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, 420, I.P.C against the accused Khulbhushan and charge of offences punishable under section 420/120B against the accused Shyamender Bhushan. The rest of the direction issued by the revisional court, shall stand set aside. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.02.06.2010 N.P