{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3122 OF 2009 1. Vinod s/o Tukaram Gude DELETED 2. Tukaram s/o Venkat Gude DELETED 3, Rajamati w/o Tukaram Gude DELETED 4. Sunil s/o Tukaram Gude DELETED 5. Narayan s/o Irappa Chitade DELETED 6. Mahananda w/o Narayan Chitade DELETED 7. Sanjay s/o Narayan Chitade DELETED 8. Amot s/o Narayan Chitade DELETED 9. Shivaji Ramrao Kulkarni DELETED 10. Durgadevi w/o Vitthal Pinate Age-24 years, Occ-Service R/o Pangaon, Tq-Renapur Dist-Latur 11. Prabhu s/o Gopinath Chame DELETED 12. Padmakar s/o Venkat Kole DELETED 13. Balaji s/o Govind Chame DELETED 14. Suresh s/o Venkatrao Chamale DELETED 15. Mahesh s/o Suresh Chamale DELETED 16. Sunita w/o Padmakar Kole DELETED 17. Vitthal s/o Hanumant Reddy Pinate Age-27 years, Occ-Service R/o Barshi Road, Latur Dist-Latur APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. Sow Mohini w/o Vinod Gude Age-20 years Occ-Household R/o At Present Sonwati, Tq & Dist-Latur {2} 2. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.T.M.Venjane, Advocate for applicants Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent No.2 State Mr.R.P.Agaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th January 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By the present application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants have approached this Court for quashing of the order of issuance of process in RCC No.420/2009 passed by the JMFC. Latur on 14.07.2009. The said complaint is lodged by respondent No.1 for an offence punishable u/s 494 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As learned counsel for applicants had not pressed the application, so far as it relates to applicants No.1 to 9 and 11 to 16, by order dated 24th November 2009, the application came to be dismissed against the said applicants. Now, the application remains only in respect of applicant No.10 Durgadevi and applicant No.17 Vitthal, who are shown as accused No.11 and 18 respectively in the complaint RCC No.420/2009. 3. Rule. Considering the fact that very short point is {3} involved in this application, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 4. It appears that respondent No.1 has filed a private compliant before the CJM, Latur against the present applicants. The said complaint is presented before the Court on 18.06.2009 and order of issuance of process is issued against all the accused on 14.07.2009. 5. It is alleged in the said private complaint that in presence of all the accused, applicant No.10 and 17 exchanged garlands to each other and since then they are known as husband and wife. Bare perusal of the complaint indicates that neither applicant No.10, who is arrayed as accused No.11 nor applicant No. 17, who is arrayed as accused No.18, is spouse of the complainant. Unfortunate part, so far as applicants No.10 and 17 are concerned, is that their marriage was performed during the alleged marriage ceremony of accused No.1 and 2. In the premise, the applicants No. 10 and 17 cannot be said to be abaters to the alleged marriage between original accused No.1 and 2. Hence, it can be said that the process issued against these respondents is without application of mind. In the premise, the process issued against the present applicants requires to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, the application succeeds. So far as applicants Durgadevi and Vitthal are concerned, the process {4} issued against them dated 14.07.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln3122-09