IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.707 of 2008 1. RINKI KUMARI daughter of Hareram Tiwari 2. Hareram Tiwari son of Late Kalika Tiwari, Resident of village- Badgad, near Police Station of Bhuvneshwar, P.S. Bhuvneshwar, District- Khurda (Orissa). . . . . . Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6/ 16.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 08.06.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Tr. No. 454 of 2007, arising out of Complaint Case no. 500 C of 2007, whereby cognizance under Sections 494 / 120 B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against them as well as others. The petitioners submit that they have not committed any offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. and as such the impugned order taking cognizance under the aforesaid provisions would be bad, so far as it relate to them. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner no.- 1 Rinki Kumari is alleged to be the second wife of Manish Kumar Mishra, the husband of the complainant. Petitioner no.-2 is the father of petitioner no.1. Learned counsel submits that Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code would be applicable, in case a person, who on the relevant day would be having either husband or wife. There is no allegation that petitioner no.-1 was having a wife when she married Manish Kumar, the complainant’s husband. Learned counsel submits that Section 494 of Indian Penal Code would not be applicable in case of petitioner no.-2, the father of petitioner no.1. - 2 - Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In my view, save and except protected by law and custom only those could be prosecuted under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, if on the relevant day, the person concerned was having a spouse living and in spite of the same, he or she married another person. In the instant case, the complainant nowhere stated that petitioner no.-1 was having spouse, when she married her husband. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 08.06.2007 taking cognizance under Section 494 /120 B of the I.P.C. against the petitioners is quashed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)