IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25555 of 2007 SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, son of late Dhaij Kumar Sharma, resident of village- Sandha Dhala, P. S. Muffasil, Distt. Saran. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sonal Pandey, D/o Shiv Prasad Makaraj, resident of village Ramnagar, P. S. Muffasil, , District- Saran .. Opposite parties. --------- 3. 31.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for opposite party no.2. Impugned order adding section 494 I.P.C. in course of trial pending against the petitioner since 2000 is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the marriage of the petitioner with the second lady had been solemnized on 25.7.2000 whereas the earlier marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party no. 2 had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 18.8.1999, and as such there was no material for the court below to also add section 494 I.P.C. in pending trial against the petitioner which was confined to the allegation only under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the fact that the complaint was filed against the petitioner on 22.7.2000 the date on which such marriage of petitioner with - 2 - the other lady had not been solemnized and there was a definite averment of the complainant opposite party no. 2 in the petition of complaint that the petitioner being married to her was going to enter into a second marriage, and that part of the allegation had been substantiated during the course of evidence in the pending trial, the jurisdiction exercised by the court below for adding section 494 I.P.C. in the facts and circumstances cannot be accepted to be illegal. The defence of the petitioner that this such marriage with the second lady had been solemnized on 25.7.2008 after an ex-parte decree of divorce dated 18.8.1999 is infact a matter of trial and can only be looked into by the court below only after leading of his evidence and exhibiting the decree of divorce as also proving the date of second marriage by the petitioner. Such defence infact cannot be looked into by this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of a pending criminal trial in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That being so, the impugned order cannot - 3 - be interfered by this Court and this application is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)