A.K.ROOPANWAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Hamirpur, in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999, Khalida v. Naseem and another whereby the order dated 15.10.1998 passed by the C.J.M. Hamirpur, in Case No. 151 of 1989, Khalida v. Naseem and another, was set aside.
(2.) IT appears from the record that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionist alleging therein that he by practicing fraud upon her solemnized the marriage. At the time of the marriage with her, he was already married and was having Smt. Shaila Rani as his wife. In support of the allegations of the complaint she examined herself and her father. On their statements the revisionist was summoned. The case went up to the stage of Section 244, Cr. PC. At that stage also she examined herself and her father. At this stage the trial Court found that no case under Sections 495, 420, 498A, I.P.C. is made out as there is no evi­dence to constitute these offences against the revisionist. The trial Court dis­charged the revisionist vide order dated 15.10.1998. Against this discharge a revision was filed by O.P. No. 2 before the Sessions Judge concerned, who re­versed the order of the Magistrate vide his order dated 11.10.2006 and that is the order under challenge here. I have heard Mr. P.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State, Mr. D.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for U.P. No. 2 and perused the record.
(3.) MR . Yadav argued that the Sessions Judge was not right in opining that no case for discharge was made out as there was sufficient evidence to summon the revisionist.;