JUDGMENT 1. - This petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. has been directed against the order dated 20.9.93 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, whereby he on a criminal complaint filed by non-petitioner Smt. Geeta after conducting enquiry under sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code. took cognizance against petitioners Prakash Chand and Smt. Manju for the offence under section 494 Indian Penal Code and against the remaining thirteen petitioners for the offence under section 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code. 2. Succinctly stated that relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner Prakash Chand was married to non-petitioner Smt. Geeta on 24.6.1988. After few years of their marriage, their relations became strained and they started living separately. It is alleged that non- petitioner Smt. Geeta came to know that her husband Prakash Chand was going to contract a second marriage with petitioner Manju daughter of Bhanwar Lal resident of village Bikarni (Udaipur). Therefore her brothers allegedly met petitioner Prakash Chand and his parents and parents of Manju and prayed that Prakash Chand should not be allowed to remarry, but their request was not acceded to and on 7.6.1993 Prakash Chand contracted marriage with Manju while his first marriage was subsisting. On 27.7.93 Smt. Geeta filed a criminal complaint under sections 494 and 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code impleading the parents and family members of Prakash Chand and Manju. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the statements of Smt. Geeta and her brothers Manroop and Jawana Ram by his impugned order took cognizance against the petitioners in the manner indicated above. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, non-petitioner No. 1 and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the lower court. 4. It has been strenuously canvassed by Shri M.L. Kala that from the evidence recorded by the learned trial Magistrate there is not a fringe of evidence against the petitioners Nos. 2 to 13 and 15, nor their any overt act has been alleged, that the said petitioners have been vexatiously roped in by Smt. Geeta and that the same amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. 2 to 13 and 15, nor their any overt act has been alleged, that the said petitioners have been vexatiously roped in by Smt. Geeta and that the same amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Sarva Shri Pradeep Shah and Shambhoo Singh Rathore have clearly conceded that against petitioners Prakash Chand and Manju prima facie there is evidence for taking cognizance under section 494 Indian Penal Code. However, they have strenuously contended that petitioners Kapoor Chand and Smt. Paani, the father and mother of petitioner Prakash Chand and petitioners Bhanwar Lal and Smt. Mangli the parents of petitioner Smt. Manju had positively taken part in performing the alleged second marriage especially when Manroop and Jawana Ram had requested them not to perform second marriage. Thus prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the aforementioned four petitioners had abetted petitioners Prakash Chand and Manju to contract a second marriage while the first marriage of Prakash Chand was subsisting. As regards the other petitioners Shri Shah has submitted that the evidence against them is vague. 6. Shri H.R. Panwar, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. Whether the first marriage was subsisting or not is a matter of evidence. This is an admitted fact that the petitioner Prakash Chand married with non-petitioner Smt. Geeta. From the statements of Smt. Geeta and her brothers Manroop and Jawana Ram recorded under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code it is fairly established that Prakash Chand has also solemnised marriage with petitioner Manju. In such circumstances prima facie offence under section 494 Indian Penal Code is clearly made out against petitioners Prakash Chand and Manju and as against them the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 8. As regards parents of Prakash Chand and Manju, there is evidence that Jawana and Manroop had requested them not to solemnise the second marriage but they turned deaf ear to their request. From the evidence, it is also fairly made out that they were present at the time of the alleged second marriage. In such circumstances reasonable grounds exist to believe that they had instigated and abetted petitioners Prakash Chand and Manju to solemnise the second marriage. From the evidence, it is also fairly made out that they were present at the time of the alleged second marriage. In such circumstances reasonable grounds exist to believe that they had instigated and abetted petitioners Prakash Chand and Manju to solemnise the second marriage. Hence the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance for the offence under section 494 read with 149 Indian Penal Code against them. 9. As regards other petitioners either in the criminal complaint or in the evidence there is not a wishper of evidence about the part played by them or their any overt act for solemnising the second marriage in question. Therefore, there was not sufficient evidence on record to take cognizance against the remaining petitioners for the offence under section 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code. 10. In Ram Karan & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1980 W.L.N. (U.C.) 592 , though the grand father and uncle were present at the time of alleged second marriage but part played by them in performing the second marriage was neither described nor stated in the evidence. Therefore, this Court quashed the order taking cognizance against them. A similar view was taken in Vasudev Arora & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1987 (2) R.L.R. 587 , wherein proceedings and order taking cognizance for the offence under section 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code was quashed against other petitioners, who were present at the time of the second marriage. 10. Hence for the reasons mentioned above, this petition is partly allowed and the impugned order as regards taking cognizance against petitioners Prakash Chand and Manju for the offence under section 494 Indian Penal Code and against petitioners Kapoor Chand and Smt. Paani and Bhanwar Lal and Smt. Mangli for the offence under section 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the impugned order for taking cognizance against rest of the petitioners for the offence under section 494 read with 109 Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. The record of the lower court be returned. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Magistrate on 8th May, 1995.Petition partly allowed. *******