JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This is a petition by the wife who has filed the complaint against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 11 for the offence under Section 494/497 I.P.C. On the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by the order dated 20.01.2006 dismissed the complaint holding as follows : " bl izdkj ifjoknh;k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd og pUnzHkku dh fookfgr iRuh gS rFkk pUnzHkku flag yTtk uked efgyk ds lkFk fnukad 22-5-05 dks /kjstk dks fgUnq fof/k ds vuqlkj fof/kekU;rk ugha gS rFkk mls fof/kd fookg ugha ekuk tk ldrk D;ksafd bUgha i{kdkjksa ds e/; tc ifjoknh;k ls pUnzHkku dk fookg gqvk rks fgUnq jhfr fjokt ls lIrinh ls lEiUu gqvk] vkSj blus /kjstk ds :i es Jherh yTtk dks yk;k rFkk T;knk ls T;knk ;g ekuk tk ldrk gS fd ,d nwljh efgyk ds lkFk o voS/k :i ls fuokl dj jgh gS ysfdu Jherh yTtk vkSj pUnzHkku us fof/kor fof/kuqlkj fookg fd;k ;g rF; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ;fn os fgUnq jhfr fjokt ls lIrinh ds lkFk nwljk fookg djrk rks ;g vijk/k xfBr gksrk ysfdu ifjokn i= o xokgku dh lk{; ls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd mlus yTtk dks /kjstk ds :i esa yk;k FkkA vr% esjs fopkj ls vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 494 Hkk0na0la0 ds rgr vfxze dk;Zokgh djus gsrq i;kZIr lk{; u gksus ds dkj.k ifjokfn;k dk ;g ifjokn fo:) vizkFkhZx.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA QyLo:i ;g ifjokn [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA----- " 3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision petition which came to be 5 dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana, District Bharatpur vide order dated 13.02.2006 which reads as follows : "Revisionist's counsel was heard and record seen. Evidence produced by the revisionist-complainant is suggestive of accused's cohabitation with another woman but in the absence of clear evidence of 2nd o marriage no interference of bigamy could have been drawn. Learned trial court has, therefore, not committed any irregularity or error in passing the impugned order. This revision is dismissed summarily in the circumstances obtaining in this case. Pronounced in the open court." 4. Learned trial court has, therefore, not committed any irregularity or error in passing the impugned order. This revision is dismissed summarily in the circumstances obtaining in this case. Pronounced in the open court." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that dhareja is a customary form of marriage followed in the Jatav Community. It is submitted that so far as the custom is concerned, that it was required to be proved after adducing evidence during the trial and the learned trial court has without holding the trial dismissed the complaint on the ground that dhareja is not a recognised form of marriage for which there was no material on record to rebut the contentions and the averments made by the complainant in the evidence led before the learned Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel for the accused has, on the other hand, contended that Hindu Law being applicable, the petitioner has failed to prove that the second marriage has taken place in accordance with the procedure as recognised under the Hindu law of saptpadi. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the impugned order. 7. The evidence led by the complainant and her witnesses is on the point that Chandrabhan has contracted second marriage with Smt. Lajja. Her statement in that respect reads as follows : " ;g 'kknh esjs ifr us /ksjtk dh jLe iwjh djds yTtk ds lkFk lEiUu dhA " 8. Another witness Niranjan Lal son of Ganeshi Lal has stated as follows : " ;g 'kknh /kjstk ds :i esa gqbZ FkhA yTtk o pUnzHkku dh 'kku fgUnq jhfr fjokt ls gqbZ FkhA " 9. Similarly, the witness Udai Chand has deposed as follows : " yTtk dk fookg pUnzHkku ds lkFk gqvk FkkA yTtk dk fookg iwoZ esa dgha vkSj gqvk Fkk vc og pUnzHkku ds lkFk /kjstk ds :i esa x;h gSA ----- /kjstk ds :i esa fookg esa lkjh jLeksa dk nksuksa i{kksa us fuokgZ fd;k FkkA " 10. To none of the witnesses was any question put by the court regarding the nature of dhareja marriage or regarding the customs and the rituals and ceremonies followed therein. There is no material on record to show as to what is dhareja marriage. To none of the witnesses was any question put by the court regarding the nature of dhareja marriage or regarding the customs and the rituals and ceremonies followed therein. There is no material on record to show as to what is dhareja marriage. In the absence of any such material, it was not correct on the part of the learned Magistrate to have given a finding that the marriage between the accused Chandrabhan and Smt. Lajja was not a valid marriage as per the Hindu Law. Once it has come on record in the statements of the witnesses that the second marriage of Chandrabhan has taken place'with Smt. Lajja and the second marriage had taken place as a dhareja marriage as well as the fact that it was performed in accordance with Hindu reeti reewaj, as stated by Niranjan Lal PW-4, it could not have been held by the learned Magistrate, as has been quoted above from the order dated 20.01.2006 that the marriage was not performed after observance of sauptpadi. So far as the validity and legality of the said marriage is concerned that could not have been determined by the learned Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance. The evidence in the form of statement of Niranjanlal clearly states that the marriage was performed after observance of the customs, as per Hindu Law. Even though the marriage was dhareja marriage. 11. I am of the view that when no question having been put with regard to what is meant by dhareja marriage and there being no material on record to suggest as to what is dhareja marriage or the custom of dhareja marriage, the learned Magistrate could not merely on the basis of the presumption that no saptpadi was performed dismissed the complaint. 12. The learned revisional court, as is evident from the order dated 13.02.2006, has merely endorsed the findings given by the learned Magistrate without considering any of the aspects of the case in any manner. The learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge hearing the revision petitions have a duty cast upon them to look into the record and decide the matter on the basis of the mdterial which is available. The order passed by the learned revisional court which has been filed as Annexure-4 and which has been quoted above fall short of such requirement. 13. The learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge hearing the revision petitions have a duty cast upon them to look into the record and decide the matter on the basis of the mdterial which is available. The order passed by the learned revisional court which has been filed as Annexure-4 and which has been quoted above fall short of such requirement. 13. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to accept this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. in the interest of justice and set aside the order dated 20.01.2006 (Annexure-3) and the revisional order dated 13.02.2006 (Annexure-4). Learned Magistrate shall henceforth proceed in accordance with law against the accused petitioner on the basis of the complaint. The accused persons who are before this court and are represented herein are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 09.07.2007 and submit a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each. 14. Consequently, this petition stands disposed of with the above directions. *******