JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 2. A complaint was filed by the opposite party against applicants 1,3, 4 and 5 along with four others under Section 494, I.P.C. It has been alleged that the oppositeparty is the married wife of Pooran Mal. The applicant No. 1 had married Pooran Mal During the life time of his living wife (the opposite oarty). During the marriage, applicant No. 4 and her husband Har Prasad had performed Kanyadan. The applicant No, 3 Shambhu Dayal being brother of applicant No. 1 had also performed Kanyadan and heloed in the marriage. The applicant No. 5 Bhikki Singh being the maternal uncle had performed some other rituals of the marriage. It was, therefore, urged that all of them have committed offence under Section 494, I.P.C. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that applicant No. 1 was not aware at the time of marriage with Pooran Mai that he was a married person. It was also urged that the other coaccused who were not connected with the alleged marriage of Pooran Mai with applicant No.1 could be prosecuted. No prosecution could be done of Har Prasad, Shambhu Dayal, Smt. Saraswati and Bhikki Singh (applicants 2 to 5) as they Were strangers. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the opposite party who has filed counteraffidavit in this case. It was urged that the complaint discloses full facts which makes out a case under Section 494, I.P.C. Section 494, I.P.C. does not contain any ingredient of knowledge. The only requirement is that "whoever having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife". There is no ingredient of any knowledge in this section. Hence absence of knowledge will not exonerate the petitioner No. 1. It was also urged that the other applicants had abetted the commission of offence of Section 494, I.P.C. "by applicant No. 1. They had aided the petitioner No. 1 by participating in the marriage ceremony and performing some of the rituals. Then they were equally punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. It cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose any offence. 5. They had aided the petitioner No. 1 by participating in the marriage ceremony and performing some of the rituals. Then they were equally punishable under Section 494, I.P.C. It cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose any offence. 5. I agree with learned counsel for the oppositeparty that the complaint discloses of offence under Section 494, I.P.C. Even Section 109, I.P.C. appears to be applicable to applicants 2 to 5. This court in exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. will not go into the merits of the case and see whether commission of the offence was probable. Recently in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (1) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the court concern can quash criminal proceedings only when the allegation made in the F.I.R. do not constitute an offence. The Supreme Court observed: ".......... the power quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare case; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability of genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the comolaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer anarbitrarv, jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 6. Since I find that the complaint discloses an offence, this application is, therefore, not maintainable anc is rejected.