1 cri appln 1754.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1754 OF 2010 Parvatibai Sudam Bhong .. Applicant Versus 1. Sudam Dattaram Bhong and others .. Respondents Shri S. B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri V. P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant deposed on oath that the respondent No. 1 has married second time on 13.12.2007. According to the counsel for the applicant merely because witnesses have not stated any minute details about how the marriage ceremony performed, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents. Therefore, the counsel would submit that, when the 2 cri appln 1754.10 respondent No. 1 has performed the second marriage on 13.12.2007 and same is deposed by the complainant on oath this matter requires consideration. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 7 submitted that, the evidence of the three witnesses have been minutely scrutinized by the Trial Court and the Trial Court found that witnesses have not stated details about how the marriage has taken place. The counsel invited my attention to the findings of the Court that in the alleged marriage there was no garland by each other, no akshada was thrown on bride and bridegroom and therefore, it cannot be said that there was second marriage. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. Upon hearing the counsel for applicant and respondents and upon perusal of impugned judgment, prima facie, I find some substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant. The witnesses were examined. The first wife has no reason to depose false on oath before the Court about second marriage of her husband. Though there was delay in filing the private complaint, the counsel for the applicant 3 cri appln 1754.10 has stated that, she was persuading the concern police station to accept the complaint. However, complaint was not accepted by the concerned police station. Therefore, in my opinion, application deserves to be allowed. Hence application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 in R.C.C. No. 336/2009 passed by J. M. F. C., Mukhed is allowed and stands disposed of. The Registry is directed to register this application as appeal. 4. On registration of appeal, admit. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 waives service of notice on admission. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 11