JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 11-8-89, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no material has been placed on record, on the basis of which the case for taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494/109 I.P.C. is made out. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate and submitted that at the time of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and has to prima facie satisfy himself whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused or not ? The detailed discussion of the merit or demerit of the case does not come within the province of the Magistrate while taking the cognizance or the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, which is, also, limited. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is true that the Magistrates have been given discretion in the matters of taking cognizance and that discretion should not be lightly interfered with by the High Court provided it has been judicially exercised by the Magistrate. At that time though the detailed discussion of the merit and the demerits of the case is not required to be gone-into but the Magistrate, at that time, is required to take into consideration the inherent improbabilities in the case and to see whether the allegations made in the complaint make-out a case for issuing the process. The cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 7 of the complaint are that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and the accused No. 1 contacted second marriage with accused No. 2 (the present petitioner) on 24-3-88 at Ahmedabad, while the first marriage was subsisting, by showing himself as unmarried. The allegations, made in the complaint, read as under : " ;g fd eqLrxhlk eqfYte ua0 1 dh 'kknh'kqnk vkSjr gS o fQj Hkh eqfYte ua0 1] eqfYte ua0 2 ds lkFk fnukad 24&3&1988 dks vgenkckn esa vius vki dks vfookfgr crkrs gqos eqfYte ua0 2 ds lkFk eqLrxhlk ua0 1 ds thoudky esa nwljh 'kknh dj nh o nhxj eqfYteku us eqfYte ua0 1 dks eqLrxhlk ds thoudky esa eqfYtek ua0 2 ds lkFk nwljh 'kknh djus ds fy, nq"izsfjr fd;k o eqfYte ua0 1 o eqfYte ua0 2 us 'kknh dk eseksjsUMe vkWQ eSjst jftLV~kj vkWQ eSjst] vgenkckn ds dk;kZy; esa fu"ikfnr djok fn;kA " Even in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the knowledge to the petitioner regarding the first marriage of accused No. 1 Ganga Ram with Smt. Seeta has not been stated by any of the witnesses. There are no averments either in the complaint or in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. regarding the knowledge to the petitioner .of the first marriage of Ganga Ram with Smt. Seeta and the allegations made in the complaint, also, do not constitute any offence. 5. As per the prosecution case itself, as unfolded in the complaint, the fact regarding previous marriage was concealed by the accused No. 1 from accused No. 2 and when the fact regarding previous marriage was concealed from the accused No. 2 and she was not knowing the factum of the first marriage of the accused No. 1, therefore, she cannot be said to have abetted, in any way, in the contact of second marriage, rather she herself was duped by the husband. In this view of the matter, no case of taking of cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494/109 I.P.C. is made-out. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed and the order dated 11-8-89, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 I.P.C., is quashed and set-aside.Petition allowed. *******