JUDGMENT Uday Sinha, J. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner under section 497 of Indian Penal Code in trial No. 1325 of 1980, pending in the Court of Shri S. Upadhya, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City. 2. On 13th April 1979, Mohammd Khursheed (the Opposite Party) filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City. The facts alleged in the complaint were that the complainant was the husband of Anisa Sultana daughter of Muhammad Wasid. The marriage had taken place about 14 years ago and they have six children out of the wedlock. The complainant was residing in Makhania Kuan, Patna for two months prior to the institution of the complaint. When he went back to his house at Mirgulabbi-Ki-Bagh. Patna City on 10th April 1979 he found the house locked and his wife and children missing. The complainant went to his father-in-law’s house place and found his children there but not his wife. On enquiry he learnt that his wife had been enticed away by the petitioner Mohammad Qamurddin. It was alleged that accused nos. 2 and 3 had instigated the enticement. According to the complainant accused Mohammad Yunus and Bibi Jaitoon Nissa had abetted the enticement for the lust of money. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was keeping his wife as concubine and had regular sexual intercourse with her without the consent of the husband. It was also alleged in the complaint that the accused had taken away some articles which had been entrusted by the complainant to his wife, Those articles had been misappropriated by accused no. 4 Anisa Sultana, the wife of the complainant. On receipt of the complaint the learned Magistrate examined the complainant, on solemn affirmation on 17th April 1979. The issuance of processes was postponed. In the inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the complainant examined two witnesses. The learned Magistrate did not issue processes for prosecution of the accused under sections 406 read with section 497 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code but he was satisfied that processes could be issued in regard to the commission of the offence under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate did not issue processes for prosecution of the accused under sections 406 read with section 497 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code but he was satisfied that processes could be issued in regard to the commission of the offence under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. After taking cognizance and issuing processes, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate kept the case in his own file for disposal. After the trial started four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. After examining four witnesses the parties were heard on the point of framing of the charge. By order dated 2nd February1980, the learned Magistrate observed that the case was a fit one in which charge under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code could be framed. At this stage the petitioner moved this Court by the present application on 28th March 1980 for quashing the prosecution under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner has sexual intercourse with Anisa Sultana the wife of the complainant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the evidence of actual intercourse was essential before a man could be charged for having committed an offence under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Looking into the evidence adduced so far I find that P.W.2 Mohammad Nazim deposed in paragraph 4 that he asked the accused to return the complainant’s wife to the complainant but he refused. P.W.3 Gopal Prasad deposed that on 12th April 1979 he (the witness) and Khursheed (the complainant) had gone to the house of the petitioner Mohammad Qamruddin. There Gopal Prasad asked the accused to return the complainant's wife but Qamruddin replied that he would keep the complainant's wife as his concubine and that he would not return her. P.W.4 Serazuddin deposed that he had asked the accused to return the complaint’s wife, but Md. Qamruddin stated that he will keep her as his concubine and refused to return her. It is true that no witness has deposed that he saw accused Qamaruddin having sexual inters course with Anisa Sultana. but in order to prove the case under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that a witness must prove having seen the sexual Act, of cohabitation. It is true that no witness has deposed that he saw accused Qamaruddin having sexual inters course with Anisa Sultana. but in order to prove the case under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that a witness must prove having seen the sexual Act, of cohabitation. The fact of sexual intercourse may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well. In the case of Sita Devi Vrs. Gopal Saran Narayan Sinha, Kulwant Sahay, J. quoted with approval the observations or Sir William Scott in Loveden Vs Loveden to the effect that it is not necessary to prove the direct fact of adultery. If it were so there could not be one casa in hundred in which the proof would be attainable. It is very rarely indeed that the parties are surprised in the direct fact of adultery. In every case therefore, the fact of adultery is inferred from the circumstances, that lead to it by fair inference as a necessary inclusion. I cannot do better than what was observed by Sir William Seott. The observations were quoted with approval in the case of Smt. Vedavalli Vrs. M.C. Ramaswami also. I am in complete agreement with the observation of Kulwant Sahay, J. in the instant case the evidence adduced by the prosecution creates an impression prima facie that the accused was keeping Anisa Sultan for having sexual intercourse. This would constitute an offence in terms of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. In my view, there is no substance in the submission urged on behalf of the petitioner. 4. There is no merit in this application for another reason. Even if the charge under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code would be found to be weak upon the allegations there can be no getting away from the fact that the petitioner was detaining the wife of the complainant. The learned Magistrate will, therefore, be well advised to frame charge also under section 498 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in the alternative. 5. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. Application dismissed.