1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2454 OF 2010 Sau. Ambika Anand Battul .... Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. S.D. Patil i/by Mr. Ujwal Agandsurve Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 7th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 30th March 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No.75 of 2007, which was preferred by respondents no. 2 to 5 herein. Respondents no. 6 to 10 are the other accused persons in the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the wife of respondent no. 2. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are the parents of respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 is the brother of respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 is the wife of the brother. Respondent no.5 is the grandmother 2 of respondent no.2, respondent no.8 is the second wife of respondent no.2. Respondents no. 9 and 10 are the parents of the second wife. Respondents no. 6 and 7 are the mediators for the second marriage. Respondents no.10 and 11 are the priests who performed the second marriage. In her complaint filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, the petitioner alleges that respondent no.2 committed offence punishable under Section 494 Indian Penal Code and the other respondents abetted him in commission of the offence. 2. The trial Court by its order dated 17th November 2006 held that the applicant had made out prima facie case against respondent no.2 under Section 494 Indian Penal Code and for abating the said crime against respondent nos. 3 to 10. As regards the original accused No. 10 and 11, who are the priests, who performed the marriage ceremonies, the Court was of the opinion that there was, prima facie, no evidence against them and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, respondents no. 2 to 5 preferred Revision Application No.75 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Solapur. The Sessions Court allowed the revision application by respondent no.3 to 5 and rejected the application by respondent no.2, the husband. While allowing the application by 3 respondents 3 to 5, the Sessions Court observed that respondent no. 2 is aged about 37 years, who runs his own business. As such he was not under anybody s influence. His second marriage with ’ respondent no.8 though attended by his family members, i.e. his mother, brother and sister­in­law, it cannot be said that they have abetted respondent no.2 in performing the second marriage. They might have even acted under the directions of respondent no.2. No fault can be found with the order of learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the order does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)