S.K. Phaujdar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the learned A.G.A. The applicants seek to quash the complaint No 1327 of 1993 wherein the first two applicants have been summoned under Section 494 I.P.C. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr. P.C. Her witnesses were also examined and only then these two applicants, to the exclusion of the other accused persons named in the complaint, have been summoned by the Magistrate, which suggests that, the Magistrate had applied judicial mind.
(2.) The ground of attack as levelled here is that the complaint was made long 12 years after the alleged second marriage and that there was no proof of the essential ceremonies of the marriage and so no case under Section 494 I.P.C. was made out.
(3.) I am of the view that the approach of the Court at the time of recording judgment in a criminal case is to look for a proof beyond doubt. But at the time of initiation of the proceedings, the Court is to look for prima facie materials for proceedings against the accused persons. I have perused the statements made under Section 200 Cr. P.C. The evidence speak of ceremonies and it is yet to be established whether these were necessary ceremonies as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The delay is certainly a criterion for consideration. The Code of Criminal Procedure has laid down limitations for certain offences, but not for offences punishable with imprisonment for more than three years. It may therefore be presumed that the complaint may not be dismissed' in limine on the ground of delay alone although. it is one of the weighty factors consideration while appreciating evidence.;