B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated May 14, 1987, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 494 and 494/109 I.P.C.
(2.) SUNITA Kumari, on December 6, 1985, filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, against Hakam Singh, Surjeet Kaur, Kamaljeet Kaur, Gurmej Singh, Manjeet Kaur, Jasveer Singh, Simrath Kaur, Raju and Jasveer Kaur for offence under Section 494/109 I.P.C. It was alleged in the complaint that she was married to Hakam Singh on October 10, 1980, as per their rites at Raisinghnagar. After three months of the marriage, accused Hakam Singh went to America and the accused No. 2. left for America earlier to the accused No. 1. The accused off and on used to demand money from her parents as the dowry. Even the amount of Rs. 15,000/ - for purchase of tickets to America were demanded and taken from the parents of the complainant. The complainant was informed by the maternal uncle of accused No. 1 that the accused has contracted second marriage and the accused No. 2 to 9 have helped and participated in contracting the second marriage by Hakam Singh. It was, also, mentioned in the complaint that the first complaint was filed by the complainant on September 30, 1985 in which the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on October 1, 1985, but the first complaint was dismissed on December 2, 1985, for nonappearance of the complainant. It was, therefore, prayed that the accused, mentioned in the list, may adequately be punished. The learned Magistrate examined Sunita Kumari under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and, also, recorded statement of Madan Lal, Jagjeet Singh and Ramesh Chandra under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, after considering the evidence on record took cognizance against all the accused, including the two petitioners. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the non -petitioner. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that from the bare reading of the evidence on record, no case under Section 494/109 I.P.C. has been made -out against the petitioners. No part has been assigned to the petitioners to have abetted the commission of the offence. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is no evidence on record which could prove the commission of the offence of second marriage. Even the second marriage has not been prima facie, proved from the evidence on record. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on : Mst. Gyan Kaur v. Manohar Singh 1970 R.L.W. 517. Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Shashibala : 1979CriLJ849 , BhanwarLal v. Mst. Sarbati 1990 R.C.C. 52 A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1153 and 1979 S.C. 8. The learned Counsel for the non -petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court.;