1 CRI.APPLN.NO.1799/2009 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1799/2009 (1.Savitribai w/o Satyabhan Landge and Ors. Vs. The State of Mah. and Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Ajay T.Kanwade, Adv.h/for Mr.SB Talekar,Adv. for applicants; Mr. KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 31 st January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 3) Challenge is to issuance of process in terms of Section 494 r/w 109 of IPC by order dated 3rd February, 2009. 4) The Counsel for applicant submits, Jyoti, purported second wife, was minor at the material time. However, in the complaint, which is lodged after five years of the marriage, she is shown to be 25 years. 5) The present application for quashment is moved by Savitribai; Satyabhan; Jyoti and Abhiman; Abhiman is uncle of Satish. Reading the complaint, specific role of present applicants is demonstrated. The matter is at the stage of evidence. 2 CRI.APPLN.NO.1799/2009 Consequently, I do not see that any case is made out for quashment. 6) The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied to the judgment in the matter of Sangita d/o Natthulal Labhane Vs. Yashodhara w/o Krishna Bhitre and Anr, reported in 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 820. In the said case, process was issued for the offence under Section 494 and 498-A of IPC and learned Single Judge has observed, there could not have been issuance of process under Section 494 to a woman, who marries a man, whose wife is living. 7) In the situation, there being issuance of process in terms of Section 109 of IPC, said judgment would not be applicable to the present case. Criminal Application lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/