HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2272/2016 1. Omwati W/o Shri Matadeen, R/o Tukiwas-Salimpur, Tehsil Narnol, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana 2. Rajesh S/o Shri Matadeen, R/o Tukiwas-Salimpur, Tehsil Narnol, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana 3. Rekha Devi W/o Shri Rajesh, R/o Tukiwas-Salimpur, Tehsil Narnol, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP 2. Hansraj S/o Satvir Singh, R/o Thatwadi, P.S. Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunuraj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.08.2015, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 494 and 120-B IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners submitted a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 21.04.2016. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of fling the instant misc. petition. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2272/2016] 4. It has been averred in the instant petition that the complainant-Hansraj is the husband of one Poonam and he has filed complaint against the petitioners and other accused persons under Section 494, 497 and 120-B IPC. It has been averred in the petition that the complainant has submitted a grievance that Poonam is his legally wedded wife and her marriage was subsisting with him when she performed second marriage with Sanjay Sharma, hence, offence of bigamy has been committed by the wife of the complainant. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner No.1 is the mother of the said Sanjay Sharma, petitioner No.2 is the brother of Sanjay Sharma and petitioner No.3 is wife of the petitioner No.2 i.e. brother of Sanjay Sharma. It has been further averred in the petition that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the alleged second marriage of Poonam with Sanjay Sharma, hence, the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid criminal complaint are not tenable against the petitioners and the same are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, second marriage has been performed by Poonam with Sanjay Sharma and the petitioners being relatives of the said Sanjay Sharma were present during solemnization of the said marriage, hence, they are equally liable for the offence of bigamy committed by the said Sanjay Sharma. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Court below has not committed any error in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the above stated offence, that is why, the Revisional Court rightly rejected the revision petition submitted by the petitioners. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2272/2016] 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners along with co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 494, 497 and 120-B IPC based on the allegation that Sanjay Sharma has performed second marriage with one Poonam without dissolution of her marriage with the complainant. Allegations have been levelled against the petitioners that they are family members of Sanjay Sharma and that they were present during solemnization of the said marriage, hence, they are equally responsible for the alleged offence. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations so levelled against the petitioners and upon finding a prima facie case against the petitioners, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against them. 9. It is well settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen. The correctness of the allegations and meticulous examination of the evidence is not required to be made at the initial stage of taking cognizance. The petitioners are at liberty put their defence at the appropriate stage of trial. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/33