JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana whereby ne ordered framing of the charges under sections 498-A & 494 against Suresh Kumar, under sections 498-A & 494 r/w Sections 109 and 120-B IPC against Pukhraj and Annu Devi, under sections 494, 109, 120-B IPC against Sajjan Raj, Ramesh Kumar, Sunder Lal and Bhanwari Devi, and under section 494 IPC against Rekha. 2. Mr. Kumbhat contended that for the offence under section 494 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the second marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Law and -as in the instant case there is no evidence that 'Saptpadi' was held the second marriage can not be found proved. His submission was that the learned Magistrate ought to have given weight to the affidavits of parents of Rekha. He urged that the offence under section 498-A IPC is punishable with three years imprisonment only and as cognizance was taken beyond the period of three years for that offence, the charge is to be quashed. He, however, did not dispute that Ganga was married to Suresh on 10.2.1989 and a child was born out of the wedlock. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Punia supported the order of the trial Court. Pointing out that the petitioners had earlier filed petition under section 482, Cr.P.c. challenging the cognizance which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.8.1997, they submitted that the petitioners are bent upon to defeat the ends of justice. 4. I have carefully gone through the material on record. There is following material on record to prove the marriage of Suresh with Rekha (i) Madan Lal, Jetha ram, Dhanraj, Amrit Lal and Ganga Ram state that they had gone to the house of Sunder Lal at the instance of Radhey Shyam where they saw the preparation of marriage. According to them the 'Barat' was staying and a 'Mandap' for marriage ceremony was made. They further state that they informed Sunderlal and Bhanwari Devi, parents of Rekha that Suresh was already married, on which they replied that even then they would perform the marriage of their daughter Rekha with Suresh. (ii) A copy of the invitation card mentioning the marriage of Suresh with Rekha on 5.3.1994. 5. The main contention of Mr. They further state that they informed Sunderlal and Bhanwari Devi, parents of Rekha that Suresh was already married, on which they replied that even then they would perform the marriage of their daughter Rekha with Suresh. (ii) A copy of the invitation card mentioning the marriage of Suresh with Rekha on 5.3.1994. 5. The main contention of Mr. Kumbhat was that the second marriage has to be proved as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein the ceremony of 'Sap tpa di' is a necessary condition to complete the marriage, but in this case the witnesses do not say that they had seen the performance of the ceremony of 'Saptpadi'. In support of his contention he cited various authorities of the Apex Court as also of this Court. It may be stated at the outset that all these cases deal with the situation after the completion of the trial. 6. There cannot be any dispute in this legal position that the marriage of a 'Hindu' is to be solemnized as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 7(1) of the Act reads as follows:- "7(1) A Hindu Marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the 'Saptpadi' (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken." 7. It is obvious that a Hindu marriage can be solemnized as per the customary rites and ceremonies of the bride or the bridegroom. What customary rites and ceremonies are required for a marriage in the Goldsmith community to which the parties belong, can be proved during trial. The police statements are not recorded in great detail. The police, it is manifest, did not enquirg as to what rites or ceremonies are performed for marriage in the Goldsmith Community. These facts can be brought on record during trial. 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 only provides if rites and ceremonies include 'Saptpadi' the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. It is obvious that the evidence of performance of `Saptpadi' will be relevant only after it is established on record that the ceremony of 'Saptpadi' was essential for the performance of the marriage in the community of the parties. 9. It is obvious that the evidence of performance of `Saptpadi' will be relevant only after it is established on record that the ceremony of 'Saptpadi' was essential for the performance of the marriage in the community of the parties. 9. Even assuming that 'Saptpadi' was essential ceremony for the marriage, the fact can be proved by circumstantial evidence. it i not the legal position that a fact can be proved only by direct evidence. Even if there is no direct evidence of performance of ceremony of 'Saptpadi' a charge can be framed on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Keeping in view the material on record, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed error in framing the charges. 10. It is settled legal position that at the stage of the framing charge, Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused. At that stage, if there is strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence then, it is not open for the Court to deny framing of charge : Vide State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 SC 2018. 11. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 the Supreme Court has observed that if there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, the Court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame a charge against him for committing that offence. It is profitable to read the observations of their lordships at para No. 32 of the judgment : "If on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the Offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage." 12. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage." 12. The same principle was reiterated in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj, (1997) 4 SCC 393 . 13. As regards the affidavits, filed by the parents of Rekha, suffice it to say, at the stage of framing the charge, no weight can be attached to them. At that stage, the Court is not required to see the probable defence of the accused. 14. The case Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (SC) 505 relied on by Mr. Kumbhat is clearly distinguishable. The facts of that case were very different. There was clinching evidence in that case to hold that the charge was groundless An the instant case, on the basis of the affidavits and the other materials produced by the accused, a definite finding as to the innocence of the accused, cannot be recorded. 15. That being so, the Magistrate has not faulted when he framed a charge under section 494 IPC against Suresh and a charge under section 494/109 IPC against other accused. 16. There is material on record that Suresh had subjected his wife Ganga to cruelty to meet unlawful demand. There is thus prima facie material on record on which a charge under section 498- A IPC could be framed against him. 17. The learned Magistrate has dealt with all the contentions raised on behalf of the accused. It cannot be said that there is any illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Since for the offence under section 494 cognizance has been taken within time, there is no legal impediment in taking cognizance for. the offence under section 498-A even if it is assumed that the cruelty had taken place three years before the date of taking cog: nizance. 18. However, there is substance in the contention of Mr. Kumbhat that Rekha could not be charged with the offence under section 494 IPC. On the facts available on record, she could be charged for offence under section 494 r/w 109 IPC and not under section 494 IPC. 19. So also none of the accused could be charged under section 120-B IPC. Kumbhat that Rekha could not be charged with the offence under section 494 IPC. On the facts available on record, she could be charged for offence under section 494 r/w 109 IPC and not under section 494 IPC. 19. So also none of the accused could be charged under section 120-B IPC. There is no material on record on which it can be said that the accused had conspired to commit the offence. Without any evidence direct or circumstantial the charge under section 120-B IPC cannot be allowed to stand. 20. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order framing charges under section 120-B IPC against the petitioners and u /s. 494 IPC against Rekha is set aside and the charges are quashed. The Magistrate will amend the charge against Rekha in the light of observations made above. In other respects, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision partly allowed. *******