S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 918/2007 BRIJ LAL V. THE STATE & ANOTHER. DATE: 19/09/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. Trilok Joshi for Petitioner (s). Mr.S.N.Tiwari, PP, for State. Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, for Respondent. Petitioner seeks quashing of order of cognizance against him for the offence of Section 494 IPC, passed by the learned Maigstate and upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no evidence of petitioner having entered second marriage - simply vague allegations of living with some woman do not constitute any offence – earlier, a case of dowry etc also registered which ended without any order for petitioner – continuing proceeding is abuse - petitioner is Government servant and said witness of marriage is resident of about 200 kms away. In support of contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 372 Prem Mittal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan & Others. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that earlier criminal case was compromised and there is evidence of marriage - at the stage of cognizance only to be examined is if prima facie case is made out. Considered. Copies of statements of witnesses recorded in course of inquiry are on record and as per witness No.4, marriage solemnized as per all customs. As above, no case is made out for invoking the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C.. The petition is liable to be rejected. Hence, rejected. On behalf of respondent No.2, it was also argued that record of lower court after being received in High Court is not traceable, so appropriate directions for re-constitution of file and proceedings further. For this, suffice to mention that the learned Magistrate can do the needful, including reconstitution, as may be deemed proper. (C. M. TOTLA), J.