1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3723 OF 2009 Bhaskarrao Gopalrao Deshmukh & ors. v. Smt. Sulakshana Abhayrao Deshmukh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.D. Chopde Advocate for the applicants. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 22 nd JANUARY,_2010. This application is directed against the order issuing Process confirmed by the Revisional Court. 2. In support of application, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that looking to the allegations in the verification statement of the complainant, at the face value no offence under Sections 494 and 109 of Indian Penal Code is made out, since what is alleged is mere presence of the applicants at the time of second marriage. Mere presence is not sufficient to constitute the offence. He relied on the following decisions (i) Shri Ram v. The State of U.P. - AIR 1975 SC 175, (ii) Dr. B. Rosaiah v. State of A.P. - 1991 Cri.L.J. 189 and (iii) Manjula v. Mani – 1998 Cri.L.J. 2 1476. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and having gone through the impugned orders, I find from the verification statement and the admitted fact that applicant no. 1 is maternal uncle of second wife, applicant no.2 is the father and applicant no.3 is the mother of the second wife. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the applicants who are so closely related to the second wife have not abetted the offence of giving their daughter in the marriage to Abhayrao Deshmukh. This is a matter of evidence. It is not possible to decide about the nature of offence in question at the premature stage. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the applicants were on merits and not at the premature stage. Hence, unless the trial is held it is not possible to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence the application is dismissed. JUDGE /TA/ 3