1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 1999 Vimal @ Mangala w/o Rangnath Gaikwad, Age: 38 years, Occ: Household,R/o. Ghargaon, Tq. Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. .. Appellant Versus 1. Rangnath s/o Mhatarba Gaikwad, Age: 44years, Occ: Service, R/o. Irrigation Colony, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 2. Leelabai d/o Eknath Gore, Mohiuddin Qazi, Age: 34 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Jeur, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar. 3. Godabai w/o Mhatarba Gaikwad, Age: 73 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Parner, Tal. Parner, District Ahmednagar. 4. Dattu s/o Mhatarba Gaikwad, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Parner, Tal. Parner, District Ahmednagar. 5. Eknath s/o Gangaram Gore, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Jeur, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar. 6. Anusayabai w/o Eknath Gore, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Jeur, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar. 2 7. Kisan s/o Shivram Londhe, Age: 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Kedgaon, Tal. Nagar, District Ahmednagar. 8. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATE : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : . None present for the appellant in spite of Court's notice. None present for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. present for respondent No.8. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the original complainant being aggrieved by the order of setting aside the Charge framed by the Magistrate under Section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code at Exhibit 130 and discharging the accused and dismissing the complaint. The order is passed in Revision 3 Application 424/1994 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 13-11-1997. Original complaint was filed by the appellant being R.T.C. No. 51/1987 against respondent Nos. 1 to 7 alleging that though appellant had married respondent No. 1 and though the marriage was subsisting, respondent No. 1 has married respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 abetted commission of second marriage. 3. The perusal of judgment in Revision Application shows that the complainant has no personal knowledge regarding the second marriage. Witness Shankar turned hostile and did not support the case of the complainant. Third witness Kulkarni was the teacher in the school, who proved the birth date of respondent No. 2. It is also stated that the alleged marriage had taken place in 1980 and the complaint was filed in 1987. 4 4. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant is absent, this appeal is dismissed. [ P.R. BORKAR, J.] sut/NOV09/cra262.99