JUDGMENT 1. - Smt. Nangi, Panchu Ram and Bhoor Singh have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the taking of cognisance by the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad in Criminal Case No. 259 of 1986 initiated on a private complaint filed by Basanti Devi in that court on December 10 1984. 2. It was a complaint of Basanti Devi that Bhoor Singh petitioner No. 3 was already married with the petitioner. The marriage had been performed between Basanti Devi and Bhoor Singh at Nasirabad on March 29. 1977 after performing the customary religious ceremonies of Satpadi, and out of this wedlock a daughter was also born who was five years old at the time of making of the complaint. However, on July 17, 1978 Bhoor Singh turned out Basanti Devi from his house. Subsequently on November 4, 1984, Bhoor Singh solemnised a second marriage with Smt. Chandra Kala according to Hindu customary rites. It was also alleged that Panchu Ram and Smt. Nangi who are parents of Bhoor Singh and Smt. Bhoori who is mother of Chandra Kala entered in conspiracy and in pursuance of that whilst Smt. Basanti Devi, the first wife lawfully married to Bhoor Singh was living, married a second wife Smt. Chandra Kala which was void and, therefore, Bhoor Singh committed an offence under section 494 I.P.C. while Panchu Ram, Smt. Nangi and Smt. Bhoori and also Smt. Chandra Kala committed the offence of criminal conspiracy. After the filing of the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad recorded the statements of Basanti P.W. 1 and Ram Lal P.W.2 and after perusal of the statements he took cognisance of the offence under section 494 I.P.C., against Bhoor Singh and for the offence under section 494 read with section 120B I.P.C. against the remaining persons who were impleaded as accused persons in the complaint. Against this order of the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabed dated September 2, 1985, the present petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1983 (130 of 1985) before the Court of Sessions but this revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer, on May 8. 1986 Having been unsuccessful in revision before the court of Sessions, the petitioners have moved this Court under section 482 Cr. 1986 Having been unsuccessful in revision before the court of Sessions, the petitioners have moved this Court under section 482 Cr. P C. praying that this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabed taking cognisance against them and also the order of the Additional Sessions Judge Ajmer who affirmed the said order. ' 3. I have heard Shri S.R. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta appearing for non-petitioner Smt., Basanti Devi and also Shri S.C. Sharma the public Prosecutor 4. It may be mentioned that at the stage of taking cognisance all that to be seen is as to whether prima facie it appears to the Magistrate that an offend was committed. There was evidence of Basanti and Ramlal before the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad that Bhoor Singh had already a legally wedded wife living who had been turned out by him from his house. During the subsistence of the earlier marriage Bhoor Singh solemenised a second marriage with Smt. Chandra Kala which was void under section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is also evidence that this second marriage with Smt. Chandra Kala was solemanized by Bhoor Singh at the instance of Panchu Rem, Smt. Nangi and also others. This fact has been stated by Smt. Basanti P.W. 1 and Ram Lal P. W. 2 before the Magistrate. Thus there was basis before the Magistral to take cognisance against the petitioners The only illegality which appears to have been committed by the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad is that he has charged Panchu Ram, Smt Nangi, Smt Bhoori and Smt. Chandrakala for the offence under section 494 read with section 120B I.P C. The learned Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad failed to consider that the offence under section 120B I.P.C. was itself a substantive offence and, therefore, he shall keep it in mind in case he frames charge after recording evidence. 5. Mr. S. R. Surana has cited before me certain decision which may also be discussed. He first referred to the decision in the case of Ramkaran and others v. the State of Rajasthan reported in 1980 W L. N. (U.C.) 592 In Ramkaran's case parents of Smt. Guddi were not present. Guddi was a minor. Only persons who were said to be present were Ramkaran who was grand father of Guddi and Sultan who was her uncle. Guddi was a minor. Only persons who were said to be present were Ramkaran who was grand father of Guddi and Sultan who was her uncle. The learned Judge who decided the case had observed in para 4 of the reported judgement that in case there was some evidence on which cognisance of an offence could be taken, no case for interference under section 482 Cr P.C. can be made out. The only evidence adduced before the Magistrate under section 402 Cr. P C. in Ramkarans case was that Ramkaran and Sultan were personally present at the time of marriage Apart from that, there was no material on record as to what part was played by them at the time of marriage. In the present case, parents of Bhoor Singh were present and there is evidence that they had organised this second marriage. The next decision relied upon is in the case of Muthamal v. Maruthathal reported in 1981 Cr.L.J. 833 . In that case, from the evidence of P. W. 2 who was an eyewitness to the second marriage and also from the evidence of P. W. 3, it was clear that it was only the sixth accused Muthamal who had accompanied the bridegroom at the time of second marriage. The Madras High Court did not disturb the charge framed against sixth accused who was 4th petitioner before them and against whom charge under section 494 read with section 109 I. P C. was framed. In the present case, both Smt. Nangi and Panchuram are stated to have organised this second marriage. So far as the decision of this Court in Vasudeo Arora v. State of Rajasthan Cr. Misc. petition No. 250 of 1986 decided on November 10, 1986 is concerned it is quite clear that the evidence adduced in that case showed that three persons named Vasudeo Arora, Smt. Naresi and Vinod Kumar participated in the marriage, and the learned Judge refused to interfere in the taking of cognisance against them. It may here also be observed that according to Explanation below section 109 of the Indian Penal Code an act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. It may here also be observed that according to Explanation below section 109 of the Indian Penal Code an act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or with the aid which constitutes the abetment. Since there was prima facie evidence before the Judicial Magistrate that the parents had thus organised this second marriage, there was material to take cognisance even for the offence under section 494 read with section 109 1 P.C. It would be inferred from the evidence that, there was agreement of the parents to the marriage and they knew that the first wife was living The performance of second marriage was an illegal act and, therefore, prima facie the offence of criminal conspiracy also appears to have been committed. I do not, find any illegality in the taking of the cognisance by the Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. So far as Bhoor Singh is concerned, he was the person who performed the second marriage and cognisance was rightly taken against him. 6. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has no force in it and it is by dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******