JUDGMENT :- The present petitioners were accused on the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - Original complainant U/s 494 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., basically alleging that accused No.1 Devidas had committed bigamy by marrying accused No.2 Kotibai @ Kantibai. Accused No.3 is father of Devidas the husband. Accused No.4 is a mother of Devidas. All other accused Nos.5 to 19 are relatives who alleged to have been present on the date of marriage i.e. 2.3.1990 at Negaon, Tq. and Dist. Dhule. 2. Admittedly, by an order dated 25.3.1996 petitioners Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 have been deleted. In the result, the petitioners who are relatives of the husband and second wife are challenging the order of issuance of process by the Revisional Court for the first time. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I.M.F.C.), Parola by its order dated 5.8.1993 had rejected the complaint itself. However, the Revisional Court by setting aside the said order has issued the process against all the accused U/s 494 of I.P.C. 3. Section 494 is reproduced here which is the foundation for the allegations and counter allegations. "494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife - Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." Undisputedly the Complainant has not witnessed the second marriage. The source of information were one Shivaji and one Atmaram. After filing the said complaint on 23.6.1993 these two witnesses have been examined. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the said complaint by further observing that: "I have gone through the complaint and verification. From it is prima facie clear that the complainant herself has not witnessed the alleged second marriage and the source of the information's, witness Shivaji and Atmaram. Therefore, the statement of Atmaram and Shivaji are only available for the consideration of issuance of process. Unfortunately both Shivaji as well as Atmaram have not stated anything about the performance of marriage, presence of the persons having knowledge that the said Devidas is also married. Therefore, the statement of Atmaram and Shivaji are only available for the consideration of issuance of process. Unfortunately both Shivaji as well as Atmaram have not stated anything about the performance of marriage, presence of the persons having knowledge that the said Devidas is also married. From their statement no prima facie case is made out by the complainant for the issuance of process, for the offence punishable U/s 494 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C." 4. The Revisional Court however, reversed the said finding. The power of Revisional Court is very limited. Considering the reasoning given by the J.M.F.C. there was no case made out by the complainant to reverse the said finding. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order of J.M.F.C. is legal, proper and correct, however, as challenge is made only by the relatives of husband and second wife and not by petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5, the present Writ Petition is restricted only in reference to the remaining petitioners. 5. After perusal of the statements of Shivaji and Atmaram recorded by J.M.F.C. and even of the complainant, one thing is very clear that the complainant had no knowledge of the marriage and/or any performance of such marriage. Even these two witnesses nowhere stated that they witnessed the second marriage in question. They only got information and they were present after some time at the relevant place. There is no reference made even by these two witnesses against all the Petitioners basically other relatives of the husband and second wife. In the complaint also only vague statements have been made against all these petitioners. 6. The Bombay High Court in Malan Rama and others Vs. State of Bombay and another, A.LR. 1960 Bombay 393, while dealing with Section 494 and Section 107 of I.P.C observed as under: "(8) For the purpose of determining this question, in my opinion, it is better, first of all, to concentrate on the first three general facts found against all the accused persons. Those general facts are that they knew that the accused No.1 was celebrating a void marriage and was committing the offence of bigamy; that they remained present at the time of the celebration of that void marriage and, during the performance thereof, they threw holy rice on the couple. Those general facts are that they knew that the accused No.1 was celebrating a void marriage and was committing the offence of bigamy; that they remained present at the time of the celebration of that void marriage and, during the performance thereof, they threw holy rice on the couple. There is very good authority for the proposition that mere presence at the commission of a crime even with the awareness that a crime was being committed is not in itself an intentional aid. This proposition is not being disputed by the learned Government Pleader. In fact, this proposition was laid down by this Court as early as in Empress Vs. Umi, ILR 6 Bom 126. The learned Government Pleader, however contended that, though this is so, there may be some cases in which persons may occupy a position of influence and rank so that their presence may mean encouragement to commit the crime, and he contended that, when such is the case, persons holding the position of rank and influence should be regarded as abettors. For this purpose, the learned Government Pleader relied upon a passage from Messrs. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's Law of Crime, 19th Edition, at page 230, the passage is as follows: "Mere presence at the commission of a crime cannot amount to intentional aid, unless it was intended to have that effect. To be present and to be aware that an offence is about to be committed· does not constitute abetment unless the person thus present holds some position of rank or influence such that his countenancing what takes place may, under the circumstances, be held a direct encouragement”.” "The matter is not one of presumption arising from certain relationship existing between the parties. In my opinion, the matter is one which is dependent upon the evidence in each case. The admitted fact is that these persons are related as aforesaid and that they remained present at the aforesaid void marriage. There is nothing else on the record of the case which would show that their presence amounted to encouragement and that if these persons had not remained present at the time of the marriage the offence of bigamy probably would not have taken place and the accused No.1 would have acted in a manner different from what he did at the time of the performance of the aforesaid marriage. Sometimes elders do remain present even at marriages which they disprove. They may do so out of sentiments or social considerations. Under the aforesaid circumstances, having regard to the fact that I am dealing with this matter in a revision application, and the fact that this aspect of the case has not been considered by the lower Courts, I am not prepared to hold that the aforesaid accused should be held to have encouraged the performance of the void marriage simply from the fact that they remained present at the marriage." 7. Therefore, above reasoning itself is sufficient to reject the contention raised by respondent to the extent that all other relatives like petitioners have abetted the offence of bigamy. 8. In C.S. Varadachari and others Vs. C.S. Shanti, reported in 1987 Criminal Law Journal 1048, the Madras High Court while considering Section 114 read with Section 494 held that mere allegation that accused were present and they threw sacred rice over the couple and blessed the couple itself is not sufficient to consider that they abetted the offence in question or it amounts to commitment of bigamy. In the present case in absence of direct allegation even by the witnesses itself is sufficient to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant against them. The complainant herself never witnessed the marriage in question. 9. In Suresh and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (1995 MCR 234), again while considering Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 494 and Section 109 of I.P.C. held that in absence of any direct or indirect involvement of the other accused, the allegations of presence itself is not enough to implicate them. In the present case, admittedly even there are no such allegations made which can be said to be supported by any witness. Two witnesses nowhere mentioned the name of all these petitioners- accused. They in fact, not witnessed the actual performance of the marriage. The complainant admittedly not witnessed anything. The Bombay High Court therefore, quashed the order of issuance of process against them in that case. 10. As noted above the learned Magistrate rightly refused to issue process as there was no prima facie case made out even after examination of the two witnesses. It is revisional Court for the first time based on same material, has issued process against all. 11. 10. As noted above the learned Magistrate rightly refused to issue process as there was no prima facie case made out even after examination of the two witnesses. It is revisional Court for the first time based on same material, has issued process against all. 11. Taking all this into account, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in issuing process against the petitioners. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and set aside in respect of petitioners only. In view of this, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) in respect of petitioners. No costs. Petition allowed.