JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. As Learned Advocate for the respondent waives service of notice of admission, taken up for hearing immediately. One lady by name Pushpa Kathole instituted a private complaint being Criminal Case No.148/2002 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2nd Court, Buldhana against the petitioners No. 1 & 2 under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and against other petitioners namely petitioner No.3 onwards to 15 under section 494 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As many as eight petitioners filed revision challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2nd Court, Buldhana in the Sessions Court, at Buldhana. The said Criminal Revision being No.60/2003 came to be dismissed by Judgment and order dated 18th January, 2008. Hence, those petitioners are before this Court so as to challenge the orders passed against them. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. It was brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of complaint said Pushpa expired and that is how her legal representative Sau. Renuka was brought on record. This happened in the trial Court. That is how the cause title in the present petition is shown as Pushpa w/o Vithoba Kathole (deceased) through legal representative Sau. Renuka. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that if the original complainant has expired during the pendency of the petition, the said complaint has to be dismissed. As against this, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that since Pushpa had rendered verification while she was alive Renuka her heir is merely carrying the proceeding further and therefore, the complaint is still alive and can be prosecuted by Renuka. 3. I have considered the rival contentions and I am inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned Advocate for the petitioners that upon death of the complainant the said complaint has to be dismissed so far as the petitioners are concerned. 4. Even without going into the aforesaid aspect the petitioners’ argument as regards issuance of process in a wrong manner can be tested. 4. Even without going into the aforesaid aspect the petitioners’ argument as regards issuance of process in a wrong manner can be tested. It is noticed that original complainant Pushpa came to be informed about the petitioner No.1 marrying petitioner No.2 by Baburao and Maroti and one would find clear reference to this in the complaint itself where Baburao and Maroti are cited as witnesses and in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is specifically mentioned about the information being received by the complainant from Baburao. All this will mean that Pushpa-the complainant was not an eye witness for the alleged marriage between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2. She wanted to rely upon the word of these two persons. If this be so it was necessary for Pushpa to examine Baburao and Maroti before issuance of process in support of her case. Learned Advocate for the petitioners pointed out that after rendering verification of Pushpa she had not examined Baburao and Maroti and therefore, the word of Pushpa that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 entered into a matrimonial relation was in the nature of a hearsay evidence and therefore, the learned trial judge should not have accepted the said evidence and he should not have issued process. 5. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that word of complainant Pushpa was required to be accepted by the petitioners and that surely said Pushpa could have examined Baburao and Maroti at the stage of recording of evidence and hence the argument of learned Advocate Mr. Darda should be rejected. I have considered the rival submissions. The submission of Mr. Darda is required to be accepted. If at all Pushpa wanted to show that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 married, she should have led adequate evidence at the stage of examination of witnesses as per Chapter 15 of Criminal Procedure Code and brought on record that Baburao and Maroti had seen petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 marrying and other persons assisting such a marriage. The word of Pushpa alone was not sufficient because she had gathered the information from Baburao and Maroti. In the absence of appropriate evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class erred in accepting word of Pushpa. The word of Pushpa alone was not sufficient because she had gathered the information from Baburao and Maroti. In the absence of appropriate evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class erred in accepting word of Pushpa. The observation of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class that a prima-facie case is made out was contrary to the record and hence the order issuing process was wrong. The same is required to be set aside. Hence, the petition is required to be granted. Hence, the order. i) The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2nd Court, Buldhana issuing process against the petitioners under relevant sections, which order is confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana by his order dated 18th January, 2008 in Criminal Revision No.60/2003 is set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the relevant charges for which process is issued against them. ii) Rule is made absolute accordingly.