Crl.Rev.No. 476 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 16.8.2011 Crl.Rev.No. 476 of 2009 Satya Devi ......Petitioner Versus Geeta Devi and others .......Respondents Crl.Rev.No. 829 of 2009 Satya Devi ......Petitioner Versus Laxmi Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Punchi, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Mr.S.K.Hooda, Addl.A.G.Haryana. None for the private respondents. **** SABINA, J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions as these have arisen out of the impugned order dated Crl.Rev.No. 476 of 2009 2 24.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court of revision, vide the impugned order, had erred in discharging the private respondents. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that all the accused had helped Madan Mohan in performing second marriage with Geeta Devi during the subsistence of his marriage with the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed. The case of the complainant-petitioner, in brief, was that she was married to Madan Mohan on 10.4.1986. They were blessed with two children. Somehow the petitioner and her husband could not pull on together and dispute arose between them. Madan Mohan changed his name as Muneer Mohammad. Geeta Devi also changed her name as Basir Begum. Madan Mohan performed second marriage with Geeta Devi during the subsistence of his marriage with the petitioner. All the other accused had helped Madan Mohan in performing his second marriage with Geeta Devi. After competition of investigation, challan was presented against the private respondents and Madan Mohan. The trial Court framed the charge against Madan Mohan under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and the remaining accused for an offence under Sections 494/ 109 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, private respondents preferred two revision petitions. The said petitions were allowed vide the impugned order dated 24.9.2008 qua the private respondents. So far as accused Madan Mohan is concerned, the Crl.Rev.No. 476 of 2009 3 revision petition filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn. Learned Additional Sessions Judge held that all the witnesses examined by the complainant had not attended the marriage of Madan Mohan with Geeta Devi. PW Matluba Khan had also not deposed qua participation of the private respondents in thesaid second marriage. So far as Geeta Devi is concerned, there was no evidence on record to establish that she was aware of the first marriage of Madan Mohan with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any mis-reading of evidence on record by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while discharging the private respondents are sound reasons and hence, do not call for any interference by this Court Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 16, 2011 anita