JUDGMENT 1. - This is a criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 2. Smt. Sarbati, non-petitioner No.l, filed a criminal complaint on 26.9.80 in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh for the offence under Section 494. IPC. alleging therein that she is a married wife of the petitioner No. 1 (Bhanwarlal); Bhanwarlal (petitioner No. 1) solemnised second marriage with Smt. Bithli alias Santo d/o Mohanlal (petitioner No. 4) with the connivance of the other petitioners. 3. Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of Smt. Sarbati u/s 200, Cr.P.C. and that of her witnesses, namely, Satya Narain, Surjaram, Bulakiram under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, after going through the aforesaid statements, was of the opinion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners and, therefore, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 16.10.1987 issued process against the petitioners holding that there are sufficient material to proceed against Bhanwarlal (petitioner No. 1) under Section 494, IPC and against other petitioners under Section 494 read with Section 114, IPC. 4. An application was filed before the learned Magistrate on behalf of the petitioners alleging therein that from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 200 & 202, Cr.P.C. no offence is made out against the petitioners, and it was prayed therein that the complaint be dismissed. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 16.10.1987 in Cr. Case No. 355/1981. Hend this petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Smt. Sarbati (non-petitioner No. 1) did not put her appearance even after service of the notices upon her. 7. Firstly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant case, only allegation against the petitioners except, Bhanwarlal and Santo is that they were present at the time when the alleged second marriage was being solemnised. Thus, taking the aid of the aforesaid contentions and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mere presence does not mean that the petitioners except Bhanwarlal and Santo made any abetment in the commission of the offence under Section 494, IPC. 8. I have considered the points raised and perused the record. 9. Section 107, IPC, defines 'abetment'. In view of the definition in Section 107, IPC, abetments may take place in one of the three ways - (i) instigation; (ii) conspiracy; & (iii) intentional aids. 8. I have considered the points raised and perused the record. 9. Section 107, IPC, defines 'abetment'. In view of the definition in Section 107, IPC, abetments may take place in one of the three ways - (i) instigation; (ii) conspiracy; & (iii) intentional aids. Definition of abetment in Section 107, IPC, includes not merely instigation which is the normal form of abetment but also conspiracy and aiding and those three forms of abetment are dealt with in proviso to Section 111. It is settled law that mere association of the accused persons who are charged for an offence of abetment and the principal offender, in the absence of any material to show that there was an instigation or that there was any intention either in aiding or in commissioning the offence it cannot be said that offence of abetment is committed. The accused persons can be charged and convicted for the offence of abetment where there is evidence to show that such persons have instigated or otherwise abetted in the acts of the person who has actually committed the offence or crime. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the offence can be said to have been prima facie made out against the petitioner, Bhanwarlal and Santo under Section 494, IPC, but, no offence can be said to have been committed against other petitioners. 11. In order to meet out this contention, I have perused the statements recorded by the Magistrate, of Smt. Sarbati and his witnesses. Smt. Sarbati in her statement has deposed that after her desertion by the petitioner (Bhanwarlal)., her in-laws started their efforts to have second marriage conducted of the petitioner, Bhanwarlal. She further deposed that accused, Chhotulal (petitioner No. 9), and Asharam (petitioner No. 8) instigated Bhanwarlal (petitioner No. 1) for second marriage, which was solemnised by Bhanwarlal with Santo (petitioner No. 4). 12. From the above statement of Smt. Sarbati it is clear that there is direct allegation against Bhanwarlal, Santo, Chhotulal & Ahsharam (petitioners). 13. She further deposed that accused, Chhotulal (petitioner No. 9), and Asharam (petitioner No. 8) instigated Bhanwarlal (petitioner No. 1) for second marriage, which was solemnised by Bhanwarlal with Santo (petitioner No. 4). 12. From the above statement of Smt. Sarbati it is clear that there is direct allegation against Bhanwarlal, Santo, Chhotulal & Ahsharam (petitioners). 13. Satyanarain, other witness of Smt. Sarbati deposed that the marriage ceremony took place at the house of Ruparam (petitioner No. 10) and Parto (petitioner No. 2) accompanied by Chhotulal (petitioner No. 9) came to invite him for performing the marriage rites, and in this marriage, Parto, Ruparam, Chhotulal Mohan and other relatives were present at the marriage ceremony. Satyanarain further stated that he performed the rites of this disputed marriage ceremony. 14. Next witness is Surjaram father of the non-petitioner. He deposed that her daughter, Sarbati, was married to Bhanwarlal and that he came to know that Bhanwarlal has been celebrating second marriage with the daughter of Mohanlal upon which, he went to Mohanlal and requested him not to celebrate this marriage but, his request was rejected by Mohanlal. So, firm his statement Mohanlal (petitioner No. 6) is the person who got second marriage of Bhanwarlal solemnised with his daughter despite a protest expressed by the witness, Surjaram. 15. Bulakiram who was examined by the learned Magistrate, deposed that he also made protest to Partoji (petitioner No. 2) and Mohanlal (petitioner No. 6) requesting them that Bhanwarlal was already married and during subsistence of his first marriage, they should not and ought not to solemnised second marriage but no heed was given by these two persons. Bulakiram also stated that in second marriage ceremony, Mohanlal, Lichhma, Chatri, Partoji, Kashi, Nathu Ruparam, Asharam & Chhotulal were present, and rites of the marriage ceremony were performed by Satyanarain Pandit and the marriage was performed by the couples before sacred fire. Thus, according the statement of this witness. Partoji and Mohan are the persons who performed the disputed second marriage even after the protest by the witness. 16. Thus, according the statement of this witness. Partoji and Mohan are the persons who performed the disputed second marriage even after the protest by the witness. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the facts condensed from the statements recorded under Section 200, & S. 202, Cr.P.C. of the non-petitioner No. 1 and her witnesses, it appears that the petitioners except Smt. Chatri (petitioner No. 3), Laluram (petitioner No. 5), Kashiram (petitioner No. 7), Ruparam (petitioner No. 10) and Lichma (petitioner No. 11) are directly involved in the second marriage and it can be said that there was sufficient material against them to show that these petitioners were directly or indirectly adding in the commission of the offence by celebrating the second marriage of Bhanwarlal with Santo. In my view, there was sufficient material before the learned lower Magistrate to proceed against the petitioners, namely Bhanwarlal Santo under Section 494. IPC, and against Partoji (petitioner No. 2,) Mohanlal (petitioner No. 7). Asharam (petitioner No. 8), Chhotulal (petitioner No. 9) under Section 494, read with Section 114, IPC and 107. IPC, but, concomitantly, there was no material before him to show that Mst. Chatri, Laluram, Kashiram, Ruparam, Lichhma were in league with other petitioners in order to get the second marriage of Bhanwarlal conducted with Bithli alias Santo. No inference can be drawn against these persons for their presence at the time of the alleged marriage ceremony because, mere association of these persons do not amount to an offence of abetment unless it is shown that there was an instigation or any intention either in aiding or in commissioning the offence. 17. In view of the afore going discussions, this misc. petition is partly allowed. I maintain the order of the learned Magistrate for issuing process against the petitioners, Bhanwarlal, Partoji, Bithli alias Santo, Mohanlal, Chhotulal & Asharam but I set aside the order of the learned Magistrate for issuing process against other petitioners, namely, Mst. Chatri, Laluram, Kashiram, Ruparam and Lichhma.Petition partly allowed. *******