- (1.) J. P. Semwal, J. By this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the applicant has prayed for quashing the order of the Courts below whereby opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 were discharged.
(2.) IN brief, the facts leading to the present application are very short. The applicant, Mohd. Siddiq was married to one Smt. Afsana Begum, d/o. Suleyman (non-party) on 4-8-1975. The applicant filed a complaint (vide copy of the complaint, Annexure A) against said Smt. Afsana Begum alongwith opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 under Sections 494, 495 and 109,1. P. C. with the allegation that in spite to the existing marriage of Smt. Afsana Begum married Naim Khan alias Chhiddan, opposite party No. 1, on 17- 6-1979 at the house of accused Abdul Rashid, opposite party No. 5 of Mohalla Hoganj, City Etawah. It is alleged in Para 7 of the complaint that accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 with the connivance of other accused persons Nos. 5 to 11 settled the marriage of accused No. 2 with accused No. 1. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 are parents of accused No. 2 Smt. Afsana Begum and opposite party No. 5, Abdul Rashid, is the owner of the house where the marriage was performed accused No. 6 Habib Ahmad, was a Vakil in the marriage accused Nos. 7 and 8 were the witnesses of the Nikah and accused Nos. 9 to 11 participated in the per formance of the said alleged marriage other averments are not relevant for the purposes of this petition. Learned Magistrate by his order dated 22-9-1987 found sufficient ground for framing charge under Section 494, I. P. C. against Afsana Begum, accused No. 2 but found that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against rest of the accused persons and he, therefore, discharged the rest of the accused namely, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 11. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 11 and the learned Additional Government Advocate the applicant has challenged the order of the Munsif Magistrate dated 22-9-1979 (vide copy of the order, Annexure B) discharging the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11. The order of the revisional court has also been challenged, but the copy of the same has not been filed as annexure. The same has, however, been produced now during arguments. In Criminal Revision No. (25 of 1980,' Mohd. Siddiq v. Nairn Khan and others, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judgj' Etawah has dismissed the revision filed by the present applicant against the order of discharge, dated 22-9-1979 in Criminal Case No. 305 of 1979. Learned counsel for the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection that this appli cation is not maintainable in view of the authority of Full Bench of this Court H. K. Rawal v. Nidhi Prakash, 1989 ACC 395. It has been held in the afore said case that the orders of the Sessions Judge in revision in case under Sections 125, 1? 3, 138 and 145, Cr. P. C. and against the order of discharge by the Magistrate cannot be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional powers at the instance of the same party or suo motu or in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for these are also some of the orders of the Sessions Judge which determined the dispute between the parties.
(3.) IT is thus quite clear from the said authority that merits and demerits of the orders of the courts below, which has been the subject-matter of revision cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant could not show any authority contrary to H. K. Rawal's case (supra ). Apart from this a perusal of the orders of the learned Magistrate and the revisional court and the complainait itself would go to show that there has not been any abuse of the process of the court, nor the quashing of this order is required in the ends of justice.;