fps!WT-:.-:! /., / -r ' v ft •^ telN!S'few®|^ f""s\ ' ' " "~ p^.fi/L-1 HI6H COtJR.T OF Cr. Che'>?idr*ikft Pr'asRd AAo'jrvot. rtQ^d about 5S years (Now 60 years), SovernmenT t:aTipiOy©€ ^QSiC r1&SAi")Ts L.SrlTre, Sovewrrent Heaith Centre Ch.awal areo, (now Retired from service), r/o 112 K/14 Bhoio ko Durwfi. Scsfef?1 SrtrQi .Allcthcib^d bisTrict Aiiahcbac} (U.P.) . S?T^t- S<3RurEtici D^V!, ^y/o Shr' Cho^dr'ikQ &ay<ilbsind, Poiice Station dty Kotwali B'iaspur', pr'esently r/o beyrikhurd, c/o Shn San.jciy Khuswa, Tnific InspecTor, S.E.C.Raiiway, Biiaspur (C.Q.) (PETITION UN&ER SECTION 482 OF THE CO&E OF CRIWINAL PROCEbuKt, 1973) (SB: Hon'bleMr.T.P. Sharmg. -J.) S ^ Mr. ShQiisndrci Soni, couns^i for th% pBt'tio^^r. '. V.K.Pondey, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER 0>as3©dor, 12* Fsbruery. 2QO°) This petitton is dfected against th.e order dated 5.9-2008 passed by the Sixth Additiona! Sessions Judge, BHaspur', in Crirnina! Revision No.111/08 affirming the order dated 27.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicia! M.agistrate, Biiaspur, 'm Complaint Case No.474/08 whereby the tearned Chief Jud'cia! AAagistrate has framed "fte chcrge for the nffe"ce punishab'e under Sec+ion 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the Betitioner. r Ipasfei^^ ^%$^t1 i^Ssa. "'"sa%;,.;> ^ 2. Ths or*der> is cheilleiQed o" ths ciround th'st +h$ rte;<iDonciel9Tt' who 1$ ls;(lftlh/ yvesddeid wifs o'f "H^s QDDliccyt h^s not o.dduc^d Q?IV sv»d<sy?c<? to show primcs fccie that the petitioner hos remarried or sote'nnized marr'iage with B'ttm Bai i" subsistence of marrjage with the present respondent, thesrefore, ar>y or'd®?'frar"i»ig chor9e for the off%ri<!~e puniishrtblg* ufidsr* Ssction 494 of the; Xnd'an Pencxi Cod^ would bs Qr'ouydless. 3- I hnye heard iearned counsel fof •the parties a"d per-used the petitio", order impugned and other documents filed on beha'f of the petitioner. 4. Learned counse! for 1+ie petitioner submits that respondent who is !egal!y wedded wife of the apphcont has filed complaint against the present petitioner for the offence punjshabte under- Section 494 of th® Indian Pena! Code on •tf'e ground thet dur-ina subsistence "f marr'age between the applicont <md the respondent, the petitior'er hos sotemn'zed marrjaga with aiother woman namely, Bittan bev' (i"d thereby comm'tt'ed offence punishobte under Section 494 of the Indian Psnol Code, but Cflmplamant/r'espondent has fai!ed to edduce any evidence to show that Mttan t)evi has inarr'ied with 1+ie petitioner'. Bittan Deyi 's a wjfe of Chandrika Prcsad Lohar cind not of the present cB)pIicant which is clear fr-or" •the evidence of Ashok Kumar Mour^'a (PW-2). Lear'ned cour'^l further subntits that eyidence adduced on behatf of the r«spo"dent/con'p!ainant is if unrebutted wouid not be sufficient for wamint conviction against the npplicant for the offenee punishoble under Section 494 of the India". Pena! Code the" the charese framed aqainst the appliccmt would be groundless. tess. 5. On the other hcnd, order impugned is gjpported "n behalf of the rwspondent cnd subirsts that the respondent has adduced sufficie"t wideri.ee to show prima facie co.se against •tt'e opplica"t and ev'dence adduced on behc!f of the respondent is if not r'ebutted, saine "nay be sufficient for warr'ant con'.'iction against the applicant. fs»3iSS!v"vS!— '.^i *-;?'?• k' I- 6. A-t the stcge of framing of the charge in con'pb.int cnse tried unde'' Chapter KEX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to ns ^he Code'), the Cour-t is required to evatuate the evidence adduced on behnlf of the cor"plainant before froming of charge in Qccordance wi'tfi S^ctior! 245 (1) of the' Cod% CEpd if ths; ssyid^ncg? so adduced if not rebutt'ed would warnint his conyiction then same may be sufficient fo?" fr'awmn of charge. 7. Respondent has ^}ecifica!!y deposed i" her "evidence that the preaent petitioner' has soiemnized marringe with B'ttan Devi. Ashok Kumar Mourya (PW-2) has also deposed '" his eyidence that preyiously Bittan bsyi wo[S "RCtrried wth ons Ch<xndr*Ikrs Pi^cxsQd Lohor but ^y cefltly reia+ionship of the petit'nner and Bitta" Devi is of husband and wife. If this stctement is not rebutt'ed then thot may be sufficient for war'rant conviction for the offence punishable under- Section 494 of the Indian Pena) Code, therefore, char-ge fmmed by the couri- is "ot groundiess. Tha court bebw has not com'nitted any illegolity in order' framing charge. I do not find eyiv subs1yEnc^ In th®Dditiori. 8. Conseouentlv, the Detition has no force. same is Hable to be dismissed and !t is hereby dismisfied at the stage of admission. 9. I.^.No.01/2008 stands disposed of. Sd/- T-p- SAarma Judge B/-