JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 19.2.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur (for short `the trial Court' hereinafter) whereby the trial Court dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner against final report submitted by police in FIR Case No. 40/201 registered at Mahila Police Station, Udaipur. 2. Briefly stated facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the instant revision petition, are that complainant-petitioner (for short `the complainant' hereinafter) filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur, against the respondents for offences u/ss. 341, 452, 509, 354, 494 and 498-A IPC inter alia alleging therein that marriage between complainant and respondent No. 1-Surendra Kumar was solemnised on 6.5.1981, according to Hindu rites. From this wedlock Kumari Monica and Master Vikrant were born. The complainant and respondent No. 2 Surendra Kumar had been residing in the same house from the inception of their marriage. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 filed a petition on 26.6.1998 u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act') for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the parties on 6.5.1981. By judgment and decree dated 30.7.2001 in Case No. 183/98, the family Court, Udaipur passed the decree of dissolution of marriage. Before the expiry of statutory period of appeal as envisages u/s. 15 of the Act, respondent No. 1 married to respondent No. 2-Indu Jain @ Indubala Jain on 2.8.2001. Respondents No. 2 to 4 induced respondent No. 1 for the said marriage which ultimately was solemnised on 2.8.2001, thus according to the complainant the respondents have committed offence u/s. -494 IPC. After the marriage with respondent No. 2, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 started living in the same house in which complainant and her two children are residing. It was alleged that respondents No. 1 & 2 made certain gestures intending to insult the modesty of the complainant, thus according to the complainant, they committed an offence u/s. 509 IPC. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 wrongfully restrained the complainant and her two children to enter in the premises occupied by them by putting a channel gate and lock thereon. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 wrongfully restrained the complainant and her two children to enter in the premises occupied by them by putting a channel gate and lock thereon. It was further alleged that on 23.9.2001, at about 9.00 p.m., the respondents entered in premises in which the complainant and her two children are residing and thereafter respondent No. 1 dragged the complainant and respondent No. 2 by tearing her blouse, thus according to the complainant, respondent No. 1 has committed the offence u/s. 498-A IPC. 3. By order dated 1.10.2001, the said complaint was sent to SHO, Mahila Police Station, Udaipur for investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C., on which a crime report was registered as FIR No. 40/2001 on 18.10.2001. After investigation, the police submitted final report on the ground that no such occurrence took place. The complainant on receipt of notice of the final report filed a protest petition on 5.1.2002, before the trial Court and examined herself as AW-1 and produced AW-2 Panna Lal, AW-3 Vikrant and AW-4 Monica in support of the protest petition. On appreciation of the material on record, the trial Court was of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents and, therefore, dismissed the complaint by a reasoned order impugned. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents on notice. Perused the complaint, police investigation record as also carefully gone through the statements of the complainant and its witnesses recorded u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that though marriage solemnised between the complainant and respondent No. 1 on 6.5.1981 was dissolved by a decree of the family Court, Udaipur dated 30.7.2001, yet respondent No. 1 could not have solemnised the marriage with respondent No. 2, unless time of appeal against the decree of family Court has expired or an appeal has been filed and dismissed by that time. Therefore, the marriage solemnised by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 amounts to bigamy which is punishable u/s. 494 IPC. Therefore, the marriage solemnised by respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 amounts to bigamy which is punishable u/s. 494 IPC. It was further contended that though there was a decree of dissolution dated 30.7.2001, yet during the period of limitation of appeal the complainant continues to be the wife of respondent No. 1 and on 2.8.2001, having spouse living married to respondent No. 2 which is void for the reasons it took place during the period having spouse living. He further contended that even after the dissolution of the marriage the complainant and her two children are residing in the same house in which the respondents are living. The respondents made gesture intending to molestrate the complainant and did not act as also the complainant was assaulted by respondents No. 1 & 2 and the complainant was wrongfully restrained by putting a channel gate and lock thereon. This fact, according to learned counsel, prima facie, has been established from the statements of AW-1 Kailash, AW-2 Panna Lal, AW-3 Vikrant and AW-4 Monica. 6. Learned counsel Mr. P.C. Sharma appearing for the respondents contended that the protest petition as such does not disclose any cognizable offence. It was further contended that Section 494 IPC comes into play if on the date of subsequent marriage with respondent No. 2 former marriage was in existence. It was further contended that since former marriage between respondent No. 1 and the complainant came to an end by a decree of dissolution on 30.7.2001, therefore, respondent No. 1 had no living spouse on the date he married respondent No. 2. He further contended that offences u/s. 509 & 354 IPC, prima facie are not made out, even from the complainant and the statement of the complainant. At any rate no offence u/s. 354 IPC can be made out against atleast respondents No. 2 to 4 and lastly it was contended that the house in which the complainant and respondents No. 1 & 2 are living, is jointly possessed by them and, therefore, it cannot tantamount to house trespass having been made with preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person. 7. Learned counsel for respondents Mr. 7. Learned counsel for respondents Mr. P.C. Sharma has relied on a judgment of this Court in Kailash Singh Parihar v. Priti Parihar, ILR (1981) 31 Rajasthan page 797 and also a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain & Ors., AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1351 . In Kailash Singh Parihar's case (supra) this Court held that Section 494 IPC will only apply in a case where either spouse living and the other spouse living again contracts marriage and such marriage is void by reason of it taking place during the life-time of the first wife. Under Section 11 of the Act a marriage solemnised in contravention of the conditions specified in Cls. (i)(iv) & (v) of Section 5 of the Act is null and void and can be so declared by a decree of nullity on a petition presented by either party thereto. As stated earlier a marriage solemnised in contravention of Section 15 of the Act is not void and therefore, even prima facie no case u/s. 494 IPC when the complaint was filed, was made out. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Lila Gupta's case (supra) held that the marriage contacted in contravention of or violation of proviso to Section 15 of the Act is not void but merely invalid not affecting the core of marriage and the parties are subjected to a binding tie of wedlock flowing from the marriage. Even though the proviso is couched in a language prohibiting certain thing being done, that by itself is not sufficient to treat the marriage contacted in contravention of it as void. 9. On close scrutiny of material on record and more particularly the statements of four witnesses recorded u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. produced by the complainant before the trial Court, I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient material on which accused-respondents be proceeded for the offences u/ss. 494, 509, 498-A & 452 IPC. However, from the statement of AW-1 Kailash, AW-3 Vikrant and AW-4 Monica, prima facie, it is evident that accused-respondent No. 1 by putting channel gate and lock thereon had wrongfully restrained the complainant and her two children namely Vikrant and Monica. All the three witnesses consistently stated that Vikrant and Monica had a study room on the ground floor, there is a passage to go to that room. All the three witnesses consistently stated that Vikrant and Monica had a study room on the ground floor, there is a passage to go to that room. They have been using that passage but respondent No. 1 has put a channel gate and locked it whereby the entry of the complainant and her two children has been restrained. There is also evidence that on 23.9.2001, respondent No. 1 along with respondent No. 2 entered in the room occupied by the complainant and respondent No. 1 caught hold the hairs of the complainant and dragged her, therefore, used criminal force to a woman intending to outrage her modesty or it is likely that he will outrage her modesty, thus the act of respondent No. 1 prima facie construe the offence punishable u/s. 354 IPC. 10. It is settled law that at the time of taking cognizance of an offence and issuance of the process the trial Court is to satisfy that prima facie there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the person accused on the basis of material on record and the evidence of the witnesses produced by the complainant. 11. In the instant case, the trial Court refused to proceed against the accused-respondents on the ground that AW-1 Smt. Kailash, AW-3 Vikrant and AW-4 Monica are interested witnesses and, therefore, their statements were totally ignored. I have carefully gone through the statement of these witnesses. AW-1 Smt. Kailash has stated that her hair were caught by respondent No. 1 and thereafter she was dragged, intending to outrage her modesty or atleast the accused knew that by that act it was likely that he would outrage her modesty. Presence of AW-3 Vikrant and AW-4 Monica at the time of occurrence is must, being the family members. The trial Court did not rely on their evidence only on the ground that they are son and daughter of the complainant. It is true that AW-3 Vikrant and AW-4 Monica are son and daughter of the complainant but simultaneously they are son and daughter of the accused-respondent No. 1 also and, therefore, it cannot be. said that they are interested witnesses. At any rate it was not the stage to adjudge and weigh the evidence as to whether the evidence produced by the complainant ultimately would result in conviction or not. It is matter of trial. said that they are interested witnesses. At any rate it was not the stage to adjudge and weigh the evidence as to whether the evidence produced by the complainant ultimately would result in conviction or not. It is matter of trial. and as such conclusion arrived at by the trial cannot be countenanced. So as the case with regards to wrongful restrained of the complainant and her two children. There cannot be any other witness within the house where accused-respondent No. 1 has put the channel gate and locked it restraining the complainant and her two children. In the circumstances, the order of the trial Court to the extent not proceeding against the accused-respondents for offences u/ss. 341 & 354 IPC is concerned, cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. So far as the offences u/ss. 452, 509, 494 & 498-A IPC are concerned, prima facie there appear hardly any evidence at any rate to proceed against the accused-respondents for these offences. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 19.2.2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur to the extent not proceeding against accused-respondent No. 1 for the offences u/ss. 341 & 354 by dismissing the protest petition, is hereby set aside. Let the trial Court proceed in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made hereinabove.Revision petition partly allowed. *******