Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51470 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11696 of 2025 Applicant :- Badelal Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay,Vinod Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kr. Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Satish Kr. Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 16.4.2024 in case crime No. 52 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 494 IPC and summoning order dated 20.1.2025 in Case No. 23 of 2025, under Section 494, 120- B IPC, P.S. Machhlisahar, District Jaunpur. 3. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are that opposite party No.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants as well as co-accused persons, making allegation of harassment and beating for demand of dowry against other co-accused person. However, allegation against the present applicants is that the husband of opposite party No.2 got married to applicant No.4 on 27.1.2023 and this marriage was performed with the consent and in presence of applicants No. 1, 2 and 3. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the present applicants as well as co-accused whereupon the court below took cognizance against the applicants under Sections 494, 120B IPC which is under challenge in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that under Section 494 IPC only the person who gets married during life time of his/her spouse can be said to have committed offence and the family members who are present at the time of performing marriage, would not be responsible under Section 494 IPC. 5. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that opposite party No.2 in her statement, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., has made specific allegation against her husband Santosh Gupta that during existence of their marriage, he performed second marriage with applicant No.4 on 27.1.2023 in presence and with consent of other applicants. It is further mentioned in the statement that the second marriage of husband of opposite party No.2 with applicant No.4 was performed with the cooperation of other applicants. These facts are sufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 494 read with 120-B IPC and there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding. 6. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025/Vandana Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad