HIGH COURT OF CHHArTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. 1S of 2011 RE8PONDENT8 VBRSUS 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. PETITIONER Madhu Bai, aged about 32 years, W/o Ravuijan, Caste-LodIu, R/o Dakachaka, P.S. & Tahsil-Pafharia, District -Bflaspur (C.G.) at present Kanwrapara, P.S. & Tahsit- Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.). Jamuna Bai, agcd aibout 33 years, W/o Ravinjaa Lodhi, Sauteam, S/o Chamrarai Lodhi Mungelhin Bai, aged about 54 years, W/oSaatram Lodlu, Respondents no, 1 to 3 are R/o Dakachaka, P.S. & Tahsil-Pafharia, District -Bil^pur (C.G.). J^^uram, aged about 59 ycars, S/o not kaown, Caste-Lodhi Amrika Bai, aged about 56 years, W/o Jajguram. Lodhi, Respondeats no. 4 & 5 are R/o Kewaya, P.S.CT Pafhacia, District Bilaspur(C.G.). PETn-ION UNDER SBCTION 482 OF CRDUINAL PROGEDURE CODE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Goutam. Khetrapal, Advoeate for fhe petitioner. Respondents not noticed. ORAL- ORDEa (Passedon 19/01/2011) 1. By fhis petition under Section. 482 ofthe Codc ofCriminal Procediue, 1973 (in short 'fhe Code') petitioner has chaBenged fhe legaUty and propriely of fhe order dated 22/11/2010 passed by 2nd Addltional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Mungelt Distnct Bilaspur in crmmial revision No. 17/2009 aEGrmix^ fhe order dated 13/7/2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Pirst Class, MungeU ia criminal case No. 124/09 whereby white discharging the respoadents Court has fi'amed the charge for thc ^ J] •y iy offence punishable uuder Section 494 ofthe Indian Penal Code ^ainst Ravuyaa i.e, husband ofthe petitioner. 2. Shri Goutam Kheteapal, Advocate for the petitioncr are hcard. 3. Order unpugned & copy of stateinent of the wifaiesses recorded under Section 244 of fhe Code perused, 4. Present petitioner has examlaed herself, aud witocsscs Ishwar, Shyamlal & Virendra Singh uuder Section 244 of fhe Code who have deposed that during substauce of marri^e of petitioner with Ravinjan, Raviajaa has performed second marriagc with Jamuna Bai. After appreciating fhe evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner under Section 244 of fhe Code leamed Judicial Magistrate First CIass, Mungeli has discharged respondents ui absence of prima facie case ^aiust fhlem aud has fi^araed fhe charge for the ofFence punishable under Section 494 of the Indiaa Penal Code agamst Ravinjan husbaad of the petitioiier. At the st^e of franung of chai^e ia terms of Sectton 245 (l)ofthe Code coinplalaan.t is required to adduce evidence to show that if same is uttrebutted fhen same would be sufficient fbr warrant conviction of the accused person. In absence of aforesaid circumstances i.e. qualily of evidence Court is not required to fraine the chai^es alfhough Court is under obl^ation to pass reasoned order for discharge ofthe accused persons, 5. In the present case evidence adduced on bchalf of thc complainaat do not satisfy the aforesaid teste therefore while dischaipng fhe respondents, Coiut below has not committed any Ulcgality. Consequently, petitiou is liable to be disnaissed and m hereby disinissed at fhe stage of admissiou itsel£ Sd/- ' T.P. Sharma Judge ^^^^S^^5Ss^-"T