JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J. :----This is an application for quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioners for offence punishable under section 419 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed her private complaint on March 15, 1993, being RCC No. 21 of 1993 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopda against 7 persons including the present petitioners who are accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that she married to one Rajendra on April 23, 1990 in village Prakasha Taluka Shahad in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Rajendra is the adopted son of the petitioner No. 1. After the marriage she lived with the Rajendra but on pretty matters Rajendra sent her to her parents house at Wadgaontek. But soon thereafter Rajendra filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 283 of 1990 against the respondent No. 1 for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the said Act. During the pendency of the said proceedings Rajendra died on May 11, 1991, in accident. It is further the case of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner No. 1 original accused No. 2 started filing civil as well as criminal cases against the respondent No. 1 with the power of attorney from the petitioner No. 2 original accused No. 3. In the course of time the petitioners No. 1 and 2 gave false notices to the respondent No. 1 inter alia stating that the respondent No. 1 was not the legally wedded wife of Rajendra but Rajendra had married one Sunita at Village Beldarwadi Taluka Chalisgaon and therefore, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim the status of wife of Rajendra. Respondent No. 1 submitted that the statements of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are nothing but misrepresentation of ones position and when they represented that Sunita was the married wife of Rajendra, though, in fact, within their knowledge she was not the wife of Rajendra but it was respondent No.1, the petitioners were liable to be punished for offences punishable under section 419 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, however, stated by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners Nos. It is, however, stated by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 and original accused No. 1 consented for misrepresentation which the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 had made. They are equally liable to be punished. 3. Mr. Challani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, no doubt tried to contend that even if the aforesaid allegations as a whole are taken as true no ingredients of offences under section 419 can be said to have been prima facie established. It may be stated that section 419 of the Indian Penal Code requires any one of the following essentials : i. pretension by one person ii. knowingly substituting one person for another iii. representing that one person or any other is a person other than he or the other person really is. Therefore, misrepresentation as ones position may also constitute the ingredient of offence as described under section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint there is specific allegation that as far as petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 namely original accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned they represented that one Sunita was the wife of deceased Rajendra when she was already divorced by Rajendra before the marriage of respondent No. 1 with Rajendra and that was to the knowledge of these accused persons. Prima facie, therefore, ingredient of offence punishable under section 419 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been established as far as original accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. In case of the petitioners No. 3 and 4 i.e. original accused Nos. 6 and 7 as well as original accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5, the complaint is totally silent as to the role that they had played in making the aforesaid mis-representation as to the respondent No. 1s position in the letter addressed on their behalf. Merely because they happened to be the relations of the petitioners No. 1 and 2, that by itself is no justifiable ground to hold that they were anyway connected with or abetted the alleged offence. The issuance of process as against original accused Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, therefore, requires to be quashed and set-aside though the original accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have not come by separate application. The order issuing process as against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. original accused Nos. The issuance of process as against original accused Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, therefore, requires to be quashed and set-aside though the original accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have not come by separate application. The order issuing process as against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. original accused Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, will have to be sustained. 4. Mr. Challani, learned Counsel, further urged that there involves the question of jurisdiction and the petitioners may be permitted to agitate that question before the learned Magistrate to which Mr. Gulam Mustafa, learned Counsel, has no objection. It is therefore open to the petitioners to agitate the question of jurisdiction before the Magistrate who shall decide the same after recording the evidence of the parties. 5. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The order issuing process as against the petitioners Nos. 3 4 and original accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is hereby quashed and set-aside. The order issuing process against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 original accused Nos. 2 and 3 is maintained. Rule is partly made absolute in above terms. Application partly allowed. *****