26. cr wp 2769-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2769 OF 2010 Dinesh Sitaram Patil & Ors .. Petitioners Vs Suchita Dinesh Patil & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. K.S. Patil for the Petitioners Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER,2010. P.C.: 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners-original accused and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused in Criminal Case No. 15 of 2006 which is pending before the learned CJM, Raigad Alibg. The said case was instituted on a complaint of respondent no. 1. The petitioners are seeking discharge in the said case. 3. Respondent no. 1-the first wife of petitioner no. 1 filed a complaint under Section 494 of IPC against the petitioners stating therein that during the subsistence of her marriage with petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 1 got 1 26. cr wp 2769-10.doc married to petitioner no. 2. Petitioner No. 3 is the mother of petitioner No.1, petitioner No. 5 is the sister of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 4 is the husband of petitioner No. 5, petitioner No. 6 is the mother of petitioner no. 2 and Petitioner Nos. 7 to 9 are the brothers of petitioner no. 2. 4. The petitioners preferred an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate which came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 2nd August 2010, dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioners. 5. On going through the evidence of the complainant, witness Mr. Nandakumar Patil and the priest who performed the marriage of petitioner no. 1 with petitioner no. 2, it is clear that petitioner no. 1 got married to petitioner no. 2. The evidence of these three witnesses shows that petitioner no. 1 got married to petitioner no. 2 during subsistence of his marriage with respondent no. 1. The evidence of the complainant shows that petitioner nos. 3 to 9 in spite of the subsistence of earlier marriage between the complainant and petitioner no. 1, performed the marriage of petitioner no. 1 with petitioner no. 2. The evidence of Mr. Nandkumar Patil 2 26. cr wp 2769-10.doc shows that when he attended the marriage of petitioner no. 1 with petitioner no. 2, at that time, he enquired with petitioner no. 5 whether petitioner no. 1 had obtained divorce from the complainant on which petitioner no. 5 answered in affirmative. The evidence of the priest also shows that on 22nd April 2009, he performed the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. In this view of the matter, the Court below was right in observing that prima facie, there was material on record to proceed further in the matter. Thus, no case is made out for interference. Petition is dismissed. 5. If an application for exemption is preferred before the trial Court, the trial Court to consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 3 26. cr wp 2769-10.doc 4