THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.262 OF 2011 DATED:27.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 30.12.2010, in C.F.R.No.1553 of 2010 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla insofar as the cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC is not taken against the 2nd respondent-A3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent- State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the 2nd respondent-A3 and two others alleging offence under Section 498 IPC. According to the petitioner-complainant, she married A1 on 12.02.1993 at Yadagirigutta and the marriage was consummated and both of them lived together at Gurazala and blessed with two children. Daughter was born on 24.0.4.1994 and son was born on 01.08.1996. Petitioner alleges that three months after the marriage, A1 started ill-treating her demanding additional dowry and ultimately sent her out of the house. She further alleges that on 15.05.1993 A1 married A2. She therefore filed the complaint alleging offence under Section 494 IPC. After recording the sworn statements of the complainant and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against A1 and A2 and did not take cognizance against the 2nd respondent-A3, observing that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against A3. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed. 4. It is significant to note that the alleged marriage of the complainant with A1 took place on 12.02.1993 and the alleged second marriage of A1 with A2 took place within three months thereafter on 15.05.1993, first one at Yadagirigutta and the second one at Tirumala and subsequently, two children were born to the complainant through A1 in 1994 and 1996 respectively. It is also significant to note that the complainant has not taken any action till filing of this complaint in the year, 2010. 5. Be that as it may, the grievance of the complainant is that the 2nd respondent-A3 is also aware of the complainant’s marriage with A1, but still he performed second marriage for A1 with A2. Admittedly, the marriage of the complainant with A1 that took place at Yadagirigutta was not attended by A3. It is not the allegation of the complainant that her marriage with A1 was an arranged marriage performed in the presence of the parents and other elders of both the families. The alleged second marriage took place within three months of the first one. The sworn statement of the complainant does not disclose that A3, having knowledge of the marriage between the complainant and A1, performed second marriage for A1 with A2. In fact, the sworn statement of the complainant does not contain any reference to A3 nor attributes any role to him regarding the marriages of A1. In the complaint, except making a vague allegation that A3 also has got knowledge of the marriage of the complainant with A1 and committed the offence under Section 494 IPC, does not disclose as to how and in what manner A3 had knowledge of the marriage of the complainant with A1 when admittedly, A3 has not arranged the said marriage or attended the same. 6. In the circumstances, as the material on record did not disclose any complicity of A3 nor any knowledge on his part about the marriage of the complainant with A1, no such knowledge can be attributed to him and it cannot therefore be said that in spite of having knowledge of the first marriage of A1 with the complainant he performed the second marriage of A1 with A2. The trial Court has, on proper appreciation of the material on record, rightly, taken cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC as against A1 and A2 and refused to take cognizance against A3. The impugned order, dismissing the complaint as against the 2nd respondent herein-A3 on the ground that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against him, does not therefore call for any interference of this Court. 7. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th July, 2011. Tsy