When the case is called upon, none appears for the opposite party. I have heard the submission of Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to this revision may be stated briefly as follows : On 7.5.93 the opposite party Miss Tsering Pema filed a complaint before the Magistrate against the accused Shri Tseten Nagadup stating inter alia that they were living as husband and wife and after 23.12.92 on several occasions she asked him to undergo Court marriage but he refused saying that both of them love each other and already husband and wife, and there was no need for any formalities. That on 24.12.92 he left her saying that he never stayed with her as her husband. That he committed murder by forcefully terminating her child and he deserted her. On this complaint the learned Magistrate passed the following order dated 30.10.95 (Annexure III). "30.10.95-Petitioner Smti Tsering Pema and accused Tseten Nagadup appeared, witness for petitioner, Shri Pom Dorjee, Smti Karmo, Smti Tashi Wangmu, Smti Sonam, Shri Jayanta Das also appeared. Learned counsel, for the petitioner Advocate KK Hazarika and learned counsel for the opposite party Advocate SC Biswas present. Petitioner has submitted to the Court a petition stating that she does not want if any maintenance or compensation from the accused, but she prays for action against the accused according to law for his misdeeds. Also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the accused. Since the petitioner does not want any maintenance or compensation, it is not for the Court to pass an order of its own in this case. Therefore, I dismiss the complaint for maintenance. I also order that on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner before the Court today, a complaint case be registered separately U/s 493IPC against the accused." 3. Against the aforesaid order, the accused filed a petition that no case is made out under section 493 IPC. However, the learned Magistrate rejected, such prayer vide his order dated 14.5.96. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the accused petitioner preferred this revision. 4. Mr. Against the aforesaid order, the accused filed a petition that no case is made out under section 493 IPC. However, the learned Magistrate rejected, such prayer vide his order dated 14.5.96. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the accused petitioner preferred this revision. 4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the faqfes stated in the complaint petition do not disclose any of the ingredients of the offence under section 493 IPC and in support thereof he cited decisions reported in AIR 1969 Allahabad 489 and AIR 1957 Orissa 198. In the former case, the complainant came in contact with a Doctor as a patient and developed intimacy and sexual connections with him. The complainant claiming to have become married to the Doctor accused, once in presence of moon, later according to Hindu rites and then according to Sixth faith. The complainant also alleged to have been induced by the accused to believe that she was his legally married wife and under that belief, to have given money and jewelleries to the accused. In such a case, accused is only a paramour and complainant his concubine and charges against the accused under sections 493 and 376 IPC must fail. In the later case, the some sort of marriage ceremony took place between the petitioner and widow and she being made to wear new clothes and put on new bangles and also vermilion mark on her forehead and there being an exchange of garlands between them with the view that both parties thought that those ceremonies would suffice to constitute a valid marriage, the element of deception is wanting in the case. It was held that the petitioner's subsequent conduct in deserting her after she became pregnant and in even repudiating the marriage, though an important piece of evidence, will not suffice by itself to sow that at the time when he participated in the ceremonies he intended to deceive her. 5. In the instant case, learned counsel Mr. Biswas submits that no prima facie case under section 493 IPC has been made out against the petitioner. In view of the above, the order dated 14.5.96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Bomdila in Case No.C-15/95 and the order dated 30.10.95 passed in Case No.D-1/93 directing to register a separate case under section 493 IPC against the accused are set aside. In view of the above, the order dated 14.5.96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Bomdila in Case No.C-15/95 and the order dated 30.10.95 passed in Case No.D-1/93 directing to register a separate case under section 493 IPC against the accused are set aside. The proceedings in Case No.C-15/95 under section 493 IPC pending in the Court of Shri S. Lahiri, Extra Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Bomdila shall stand quashed. 6. Send immediately the lower Court records along with a copy of the judgment and order of this Court. The accused petitioner stands discharged from bail bond. With the above direction and observation, the revision is disposed of.