Crl. Revision No. 749 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision. No. 749 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:-September 09, 2011 Nishu Arora ......Petitioner Versus Rohit Taneja and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.3-State. *** A.N. JINDAL, J. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 09.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, allowing the appeal preferred by accused-respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the order dated 01.05.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri and discharging them under Sections 494, 420, 120-B IPC. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jagadhri, vide order dated 01.05.2009 framed charge against the accused under Sections 494, 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, whereas in the revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide order dated 09.11.2009 Crl. Revision No. 749 of 2010 (O&M) 2 held that offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. The first Revisional Court has further observed that since offence under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable, the complainant was required to file a private complaint and the police has wrongly registered the case for that offence. The first Revisional Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., which read as under:- “(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” Thus, it appears that there was no bar for the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC when the challan was presented against the accused for cognizable as well as non-cognizable offences. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has urged that charge under Section 420 IPC was not made out against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He has relied upon the judgments of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case Aramati Rama Devi Vs. Aramati Reddappa Reddi and others, 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 368 and Karnataka High Court in case S.G. Mallikarjun Vs. Smt. Asha, 2004 (4) Crl. CC 167. The aforesaid judgments are on different facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the petitioner being unmarried, believing the respondent to be bachelor, agreed to marry with him. The respondent No.1 did not disclose about his first marriage and thereby, cheated him. The fraud came to light only when his first wife appeared at the time when 'doli' was about to leave. It is observed that the first Revisional Court appears to have entered into controversy on merits and has ignored the principles of Crl. Revision No. 749 of 2010 (O&M) 3 law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is not to go deep into the merits of the case and decide, if the accused could be convicted or acquitted, but it has to find out if prima facie case is made out. The Court has also not taken into consideration the allegations in the FIR or the charge report, as such, the impugned order needs to be reversed. In view of the above discussion, this petition is accepted; the judgment dated 09.11.2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. ( A.N. JINDAL ) JUDGE September 09, 2011 ajp