Order.- This petition under section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, is by accused in Preliminary Register Case No. 11 of 1969 on the file of Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Narsapur to quash the order committing him to the Court of Sessions for trial for offences under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code. 2. A private complaint was filed by P.W.1 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur against the accused for offences under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code, on the following grounds. The complainant Josyula Ramalakshmi was staying in the house of one Malapaka Santhamma at Gumparru opposite the house of accused and became acquainted with the accused and his family. The accused was then studying at Y.N. College, Narsapur. Thereafter while the complainant was undergoing training in the industrial training centre at Sakhimetipalli, the accused used to visit her and expressing his desire to marry her invited her to have sexual intercourse with him. She resisted the same stating that unless he married her she would not yield to such intercourse. The accused agreed to marry her and took her to the house of a Purohit P.W. 6 at Narsapur and went through the ceremony of the marriage on the night of 12th March, 1967, at about 2-30 a.m., and thereafter she and the accused lived for some time as man and wife at Narsapur in the houses of Sri Y. Subrahmanyam, Vakil at Narsapur and one V. Subbarao, Ex. Principal, Y.N. College, Narsapur, respectively, when she becarre pregnant, the accused on or about 28th April, 1969, with a view to procure abortion, took her to the hospital of Dr. P. Subrahmanyam, but she refused to undergo the operation and they continued to live as husband and wife till the second week of June, 1969. By the middle of June, 1969, she learnt that the father of the accused was making arrangements to fix a bride for the accused and the marraige would take place between the accused and the would-be bride, and when she questioned accused about it, he stated that the marriage that took place in the house of P.W.6 was only a (secret marriage) and is not valid that he is now free to marry any girl and ceased to visit the complainant thereafter. On 6th July, 1969, the complainant took a number of persons to the house of the accused to raise a dispute with the father of the accused, but the accused was not allowed to come out of the house and hence the complaint is filed. In support of this case the complainant had examined 8 witnesses including herself as P.W.1. On a consideration of the evidence, the Magistrate framed charges under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code, and committed the accused to take his trial in the Court of the Sessions. Hence this petition under section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash that committal. 3. Under section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, committal can be quashed only by the High Court and only on a point of law. The point of law urged is that there is not even a prima jade case made out in the complaint or by the witnesses and this is a fatal flaw in the prosecution case as it does not conform to the provisions of section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, warranting a committal. Under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, what the Magistrate has to see is whether on the evidence adduced, there are sufficient grounds for committing the accused. He cannot be considered to be a recording machine for recording the evidence and a post office or a conduit pipe for transmitting it to the Sessions Court. As pointed out in Alamohan Das v. State of West Bengal1, the Magistrate holding an enquiry preparatory to commitment is not intended to act merely as a recording machine but he is entitled to sift and weigh the material on record only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction but if there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit it is his duty to discharge the accused. On the other hand if there is some evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based he must commit the case. The Magistrate at that stage has no power to evaluate the evidence for satisfying himself as to the guilt of the accused. It is therefore, to be seen whether a prima facie case for the offence under section 493 and 496 has been made out in this case. 4. The Magistrate at that stage has no power to evaluate the evidence for satisfying himself as to the guilt of the accused. It is therefore, to be seen whether a prima facie case for the offence under section 493 and 496 has been made out in this case. 4. Under section 493, Indian Penal Code, the offence consists in making a woman believe that she is lawfully married to him by deceit and inducing her to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief. What is required is that by deceitful means, the accused must induce a belief of lawful marriage and then make the woman cohabit with him. Under section 496, Indian Penal Code, the offence consists in dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention going through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married. In both the cases it is obvious that a form of marriage which is not valid must have been gone through with a fraudulent intention. If all the forms of a valid marriage have been gone through even with an unwilling bride on bridegroom the marriage cannot be said to be invalid, nor can a subsequent disclaimer of a marraige validly performed make it invalid or fraudulent. The offence under section 493, Indian Penal Code, consists in giving a false assurance of the marriage to a woman and thereby procuring sexual intercourse with her. The offence under section 496, Indian Penal Code, consists in fraudulently going through the ceremony itself knowing that it was not lawful. 5. The facts in this case even as alleged in the complaint or as brought out in the evidence do not show that what was gone through was not a lawful marriage. According to the complainant herself, the accused was assuring her that he would marry her and wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, but she refused to allow it unless he marries her and thereupon the accused had arranged for the marriage and the marriage was performed on the night of 13th March, 1967 at 2-30 a.m. in the house of P.W.6. According to her, P.W.6, recited Mantrams and got the ‘Mangalsutram’ tied to her by the accused the ‘Thambulams" were given. P.W.6 the purohit also speaks to have performed the marriage. According to her, P.W.6, recited Mantrams and got the ‘Mangalsutram’ tied to her by the accused the ‘Thambulams" were given. P.W.6 the purohit also speaks to have performed the marriage. P.Ws.7 and 8 are said to be persons who have attended the marriage at the house of P.W.6 out of them P.W.7 had turned hostile. But P.W.8 admits that he is also a purohit, that he attended the marriage and by the time he went there the accused was tying ‘Mangalasutram’ around the neck of the complainant and the accused gave him ‘Sambhavana’ and that P.W.7 was also present at that time and he was also given ‘Sambhavana’. Nowhere had they stated that the required ritual ‘Saptapadi’ had been performed. The burden was on the complainant to establish that the marriage that was performed was not a valid marriage, as all the necessary rituals prescribed for a valid Hindu marriage had been gone through. It has not even been elicited from the Purohit P.W.6 or from P.W.8 that ‘Saptapadi’ and other required rituals were not performed. The learned Counsel for the complainant contends that there is no evidence to show that they have been performed and unless there is such evidence that marriage is not valid. This is a strange contention as it is for the complaint to establish that no valid marriage was performed. The duty was cast on her to show that the rituals necessary for the marriage are not performed. There appears to have been some reluctance on the part of both the complainant and her counsel to elicit from her own witnesses that the necessary rituals have not been gone through. 6. Nearly for a period of about 2½ years after the ceremony admittedly the complainant and the accused had been living as man and wife and the complainant had also got pregnant. P.W. 3 the sister of the complainant says that the accused himself told her that he had married the complainant. After the complainant had become pregnant, the accused had taken her to a Clinic of Dr. P. Subrahmanyam and there she learnt that the object was to have an abortion done. P.W. 3 the sister of the complainant says that the accused himself told her that he had married the complainant. After the complainant had become pregnant, the accused had taken her to a Clinic of Dr. P. Subrahmanyam and there she learnt that the object was to have an abortion done. P.W.1 says that she questioned the accused about it and the accused said that he was still a student and was not employed and was not in a position to maintain the family if children were born, and that if his father came to know about it he would not send money to him. This shows that the accused had married P.W.1 even without the knowledge of his father and wanted to keep it a secret. It is her further case that later on her sister told her that the accused was getting matches for his marriage i.e., after May, 1969 and when she questioned him about it he then stated: This statement was made by him nearly 2½ years after the ceremony of marriage had gone through. Even here he is stated to have referred to the marriage as (secret marriage) and not a ‘Mock’ marriage. According to the complainant, later on she went with mediators and contacted with the father of the accused and the mediators asked the accused’s father to take the complainant as his daughter-in-law and that he should not leave a woman who was like that and the accused’s father said that she could get redress in a Court of law and therefore, she filed the complaint. This evidence shows that it is not her case that the marriage was not a valid marriage. It is the conduct of her father-in-law in refusing to recognise the marriage that was performed without his knowledge or consent that had resulted in the filing of the complaint. The accused was treating her as his wife for a period of 2½ years till it came to the knowledge of his parents and they wanted him to avoid the marriage and he had succumbed to their wishes. Filing of a complaint for the offence under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code, would not give the complainant the proper relief by way of redressing the grievance. There is no evidence in this case to establish that there was no valid marriage. 7. Filing of a complaint for the offence under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code, would not give the complainant the proper relief by way of redressing the grievance. There is no evidence in this case to establish that there was no valid marriage. 7. It is necessary for an offence under sections 493 and 496, Indian Penal Code, to establish that the deceit and the fraudulent intention contemplated by the provisions should have been at the time of marriage. But the evidence does not establish those ingredients. On the, other hand it showed that the marriage ceremony was gone through and for 2½ years the accused was treating the complainant as his wife, that it was the opposition of the father of the accused that had made him to disclaim her subsequently calling it (secret marriage). The subsequent disclaimer cannot be taken into account in determining the offence, especially in a case of this type. Even in cases of valid marriages the husband may after some period, to get rid of the wife he does not like, call it a mock marriage, or invalid marriage to serve his own ends. It is essential that the deceit and fraudulent intention contemplated should be found to have existed at the time of the ceremony of marriage was gone through. In this case there is no such evidence. Therefore the essential ingredients for establishing an offence under section 493 or 496 are absent in this case. As such no prima facte case has been made out, therefore, there are no sufficient grounds for committing the accused to take his trial for the offences under sections 493 and 496, Civil Procedure Code, in the Court of Sessions. The Committal order is quashed and the accused is discharged. 8. This petition is therefore, allowed. A.B.K. ----- Appeal allowed; Committal order quashed.