GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal revision petition under s. 397. read with S. 401, Cr. P. C. against the orders of the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh dated 6. 7. 1982 and 28. 4. 1984 in complaint case No. 439/1982 (Kiran Devi Vs. Arvind Kumar) whereby the process has been ordered to be issued against the petitioners for the offences under Ss. 494 and 120 IPC.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that, Smt. Kiran Devi, aged 26 years, filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, alleging therein that she is duly wedded wife of Arvind Kumar s/o Bujanram, adopted son of Bholuram but, Arvind Kumar knowing it well has conducted the second marriage with Pratima alias Prem Lata d/o Jagramsingh. the petitioner No. 2, who is real brother of Rohitas Kumar, IPS, the petitioner No. 1. Smt. Kiran Devi in this complaint mentioned that on the demand by Arvind Kumar, her parents have already given huge amount of Rs. 25,000/-approx. , in addition to the golden and silver ornaments, and have helped him in getting education upto B. Com. and M. Com. But, now when he has become Lecturer and all the brothers of Arvind Kumar have become Gazetted Officers and influenced persons, they have illegally and unlawfully got conducted the second marriage of Arvind Kumar. It was also mentioned that Rohitas Kumar, the real brother of Jagram Singh who is father of Pratima alias Prem Lata aged about 10-12 years as alleged in the complaint, has been married with the accused, at Jaipur. The members of the marriage procession protested against this and returned from the marriage procession because of this illegal action of second marriage of Arvind Kumar. The second marriage of Arvind Kumar was conducted in lieu of dowry in the form of cash and scooter, etc. It was also mentioned that the accused Arvind Kumar is enjoying with the new wife Pratima alias Prem Lata while the complainant who is earlier wife, has been starving. On a perusal of the record particularly the evidence recorded under s. 202, Cr. P. C, it was revealed that the brides (Pratiams) parents and uncle etc. . particularly, Rohitash Kumar, IPS, who is real brother of Jagram Singh whose daughter Pratima was married to Arvind Kumar, and Smt Patasi W/o Jagram Singh the mother of bride (Prem Lata), were all in conspiracy in conducting the second marriage amounting to the offence under s. 494, IPS, as they were knowing it very well that Arvind Kumar has already a married wife Smt Kiran Devi, still they by the use of influence of police got conducted the second marriage of Arvind Kumar inspite of the protest and opposition by the kinsman and relatives in their community. An application was, therefore, moved by the complainant. Smt. Kiran Devi, to also issue process against the petitioners and ors. The Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, vide order dated 6. 7. 1982, issued process against the petitioners, so also Arvind Kumar and two others, for the commission of offences under Ss. 494 & 120, IPC. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 28. 4. 1984 directed that non-bailable warrants be issued against the petitioners.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, Shri A. K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, challenged the orders on the ground that under s. 319, Cr. P. C. no cognizance can be taken against the petitioners unless the evidence is recorded. Shri Gupta placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sheoram Singh Vs. State of Raj. (1 ). Shri Gupta argued that there is no evidence at all in support of the allegations that these petitioners were having any knowledge of marriage of Arvind Kumar with Smt. Kiran Devi. Lastly, Shri Gupta argued that in any case, the learned Magistrate should not have issued non-bailable warrants in the facts and circumstances of the case. Shri M. M. Ranjan, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Smt. Kiran Devi, the non-petitioner No. 2, has opposed this review petition. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Basically the present one is a case where, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance under s. 204 read with s. 190 Cr. P. C, and I am of the opinion that the mention of s 319 Cr. P. C. both in the application as well as the order is an error of inexactitude. Such an error cannot vitiate the order itself because by mentioning particular sec. which may be wrong, the nature of the order cannot be altered and changed, and this view cannot be taken merely on this basis. It is established that if an order can be sustained, the mere mention of wrong law or statute, of wrong provisions would not vitiate it. This proposition of law is so patent and Shri Gupta could not contest it as proposition of law. ;