JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions have been filed against common impugned orders, hence decided by this common order.These petitions have been filed against the order dated 30.4.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 494 and 120-B IPC. The facts are taken from Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 1352/2005. 2. The short facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint against petitioners on which FIR No. 40/2004 has been registered and after investigation, final report has been filed. A protest petition was filed by the complainant. The court recorded statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C and took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 494 and 120-B IPC. Revision petition was filed which was also rejected, hence these petitions. 3. The contention of the present petitioners is that earlier Bhagwan Swaroop who is father of Rashmi who has been alleged to be wife of respondent has filed an FIR No. 9/2003 for abduction of his daughter Rashmi in which statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C were recorded where Rashmi has not stated that she has solemnised marriage with respondent. Thereafter Rashmi has solemnised marriage with present petitioner Laxman Singh. Bhagwan Swaroop has also lodged an FIR for abduction of his other daughter Pushpa at P.S. Nadbai which was registered as FIR No. 276/2003. Respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was withdrawn on costs. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Rashmi has stated that she was at her uncle's place from 7.2.2003 to 16.2.2003 she has no relation with respondent and when first marriage with respondent is not proved, Rashmi contacting her second marriage with petitioner is not an offence and it is also stated that respondent also filed a civil suite for declaration of marriage which was dismissed. The petitioner Prem Bahadur is a Government servant being Station House Officer, he was not present at the time of marriage, he was on leave for three days as copy of Roznamcha has also been placed on record, inspite of this cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners which be quashed.Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that the court below has considered the material on record, oral and documentary evidence and after considering the facts, cognizance has rightly been taken. The order has been assailed by way of revision and revisional court has also affirmed the order, thus this Misc. Petition is abuse of process by way of second revision and there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and respondent present in person and perused the impugned orders as well as the documents produced by both the parties. 5. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that court below has considered the fact that marriage has taken place between respondent No. 2 and Rashmi on 6.2.2003, documentary evidence that is, application to District Collector for registration of marriage, affidavit of Rashmi and affidavit of Pandit have also been considered and it is an admitted fact of the petitioner that Rashmi has contacted second marriage with Laxmi Narayan. In view of the above, cognizance has been taken against the present petitioners. 6. The contention of the present petitioners is that civil suit for declaration of marriage has been dismissed and when finding of the civil court is there, criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded. Copy of the judgment of civil court is placed on record which speaks that civil suit has been dismissed in view of the fact that alternative remedy under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is available to the plaintiff and in view of this, civil suit has been dismissed and respondent has also placed reliance on Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & ors., AIR 2001 SC 3846 ; Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2119 : "Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein." Reliance has also been placed on M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras & ors., AIR 1954 SC 397 . 7. Hence, in view of the above, it can safely be concluded that finding of the civil court are not conclusive to decide the fate of the criminal proceedings. Here in the present case, civil suit has not been decided on merit but has been dismissed on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the plaintiff. Respondent has also relied upon K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 3372 , wherein scope of Section 41 of Evidence Act has been explained. There is no quarrel to this legal proposition. 8. The contention of the respondents is that he has stated on oath that he has contacted marriage with Rashmi on 6.2.2003 and documentary evidence Ex.P/1 to P/10 has also been placed on record which was considered by the courts below and allegations in the complaint has to be accepted as true and allegations made out in the complaint constitute the offence of 494 IPC, hence cognizance has rightly been taken and reliance has been placed on K. Neelaveni v. Inspector of Police & ors., AIR 2010 SC 3191 wherein it has been held: "In our opinion, the allegations made in the First Information Report, at this stage, have to be accepted as true, and allegations so made prima facie, constitute offences under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It has to be borne in mind that while considering the application for quashing of the charge sheet, the allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered. Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of trial. Truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation is not fit to be gone into at this stage as it is always a matter of trial. Essential ceremonies of the Marriage were gone into or not is a matter of trial." 9. In view of the above, the courts below were justified in taking cognizance against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 494 IPC.The respondent has also relied upon Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2012 STPL (Web) 209 SC wherein it has been held that if in the opinion of Magistrate, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. Here in the present case, there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence before the courts below for taking cognizance. Further reliance has been placed on Dr. Mrs Nupur Talwar v. CBI, Delhi & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 847 ; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shri Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2872 ; Mrs Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.J. 381 ; Yashwant Singh v. State of Raj. & Anr., SB Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 146/2006 decided on 9.2.2010 ; and M/s Bharat Pesticides Manufacturing Co. & Anr., v. State of Raj., SB Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 373/2003 decided on 27.11.2008 .In State of Andhra Pradsh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah & Anr., 2009 (3) RLW 2098 (SC) the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C has been explained thus: "As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc., ( AIR 1993 SC 892 ) , Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another, ( AIR 1964 SC 1 )) . It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding." 10. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceeding." 10. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 11. he petitioners has relied upon SB Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 2318/2013 Ravi Shankar Katara v. State of Raj. & Anr. , wherein the court has relied upon statements of prosecutrix recorded before the Division Bench. Here in the present case, Rashmi has not stated anything as regards factum of marriage with respondent in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and otherwise also Rashmi is the accused in the present case, hence her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has no bearing on the case. She has stated that she never went with the respondent but contrary to this, she has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. Hence in view of the above, the contention of the present petitioners is not acceptable. The petitioners have relied upon Sham Singh & ors. v. Sarabjit Kaur, 1998 Cr.L.J. 4788 wherein it has been held: "A perusal of Section 494, IPC aforesaid will go to show that the offence thereunder is committed by either spouse, who remarries during subsistence of a legal and valid marriage. The petitioner, other than petitioner No. 1/Sham Singh could not be summoned under Section 494, IPC. They could be summoned only under Section 109, IPC, which provides for punishment for abetment to commit a crime. Section 109, IPC reads as under:- 109. Punishment of abetment if the act is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment - whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation. - An act of offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment." 12. Explanation. - An act of offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment." 12. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order impugned by which cognizance has been taken against Rashmi for the offence under Section 494 and 406 IPC but looking to the law laid down in Sham Singh (supra) the cognizance against other petitioners is converted for the offence under Section 494 read with 109 IPC. 13. The contention of petitioner Prem Bahadur is that he was not present at the time of marriage as he was on leave and Roznamcha has also been placed on record to support his defence of alibi. Defence version cannot be looked into at the time of taking cognizance, hence this plea is unwarranted at this stage.With the aforesaid modification, both these petitions are dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******