JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.5.2005 passed by Special judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Sri Ganganagar (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 7/2005, whereby the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120-13, 417, 375(4), 376/493, 495/120-13 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner married with the complainant. The only allegation against the petitioner is that though he is already married and having the wife, still he contacted a second marriage with the complainant and, therefore, only the offences punishable under Sections 120- 13, 417 and 495 I.P.C. are made out against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant agrees that no offence under Sections 475(4), 376/493 I.P.C. are made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also confined his arguments and challenge only to the extent of the order framing charges under Sections 375(4) and 376/493 I.P.C. 5. Having considered the material on record, in my view, the trial Court was justified in framing charges for the offences under Sections 120-13, 417 and 495 I.P.C. however, there being no evidence to sustain the charges for the offences under Sections 375(4) and 376/493 I.P.C., the charges framed by the trial Court for these two offence cannot be sustained. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order impugned, to the extent framing charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 375(4) and 376/493, is set aside. The stay petition stands disposed of. T1ie Sessions Judge shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.Revision petition partly allowed. *******