Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of filing this instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have assailed the order dated 24.02.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, City North No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 319/2004, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under Section 494 read with Sections 109 to 114 IPC, and against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC. 2. That on 06.06.2003, Non-petitioner No.2, Smt. Alpana Singh, filed a complaint under Sections 494, 497, 114, and 109 IPC against her husband Ajay Singh and others, alleging that during the subsistence of her marriage, Ajay Singh solemnized a second marriage with one Kishan Kanwar, with the aid and abetment of family members and acquaintances. The learned trial court recorded the statements of Smt. Alpana Singh and her father Veer Bahadur Singh under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and, vide order dated 24.02.2004, took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Section 494 read with Sections 109 and 114 IPC. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the said cognizance order, primarily on the grounds that they are living separately, were neither present nor connected with the alleged second marriage, and that there is no prima facie evidence of the performance of essential marriage ceremonies to constitute a valid second marriage under law. 3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 4. Upon a meticulous examination of the material placed on record and the complaint dated 06.06.2003 filed by the non- petitioner No.2, Smt. Alpana Singh, it becomes apparent that the substratum of the allegation under Section 494 IPC is the assertion that the principal accused Ajay Singh, during the subsistence of a valid marriage with the complainant, solemnised a second marriage with one Smt. Kishan Kanwar. The fulcrum of the impugned order of cognizance dated 24.02.2004 is the deposition made by the complainant under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., wherein she claims to have visited the government accommodation allotted to her husband and allegedly found the said lady residing there, who identified herself as his wife. The fulcrum of the impugned order of cognizance dated 24.02.2004 is the deposition made by the complainant under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., wherein she claims to have visited the government accommodation allotted to her husband and allegedly found the said lady residing there, who identified herself as his wife. However, such a statement, even if taken at its face value, amounts to no more than a bald assertion and is devoid of any legally acceptable or cogent evidence as to the solemnization of a second marriage in accordance with the mandatory rites and ceremonies prescribed under personal law. 5. It is a settled position in law that, for an offence under Section 494 IPC to be legally tenable, it must be established by reliable and affirmative evidence that the second marriage was solemnized with due performance of essential rites and customs as recognized by the law applicable to the parties. The mere admission or assertion of marriage, without proof of performance of essential ceremonies— particularly Saptapadi and Homam in Hindu Law—cannot constitute proof of a valid second marriage for the purpose of Section 494 IPC. In the present case, there is a conspicuous absence of any witness who may have been privy to, or present at, the alleged ceremony. The complainant herself was not present at the time of the purported solemnization, and her deposition is based entirely on hearsay and subsequent conduct, such as cohabitation, which, even if true, does not amount to proof of lawful solemnization of marriage in the eyes of law. 6. More significantly, in so far as the petitioners herein—who are relatives of the principal accused Ajay Singh—are concerned, the material on record is even more tenuous. There is no averment, much less any prima facie material, to demonstrate that these petitioners abetted, instigated, or conspired with Ajay Singh to contract the alleged second marriage. The entire foundation of the case against them appears to rest on the speculative and sweeping allegation that they were “aware” of the second marriage and “supported” it. However, mere knowledge or familial association, without any overt act or role suggesting abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, cannot be the basis for prosecution in a criminal case, especially when the primary act of bigamy itself remains unsubstantiated by foundational proof. However, mere knowledge or familial association, without any overt act or role suggesting abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, cannot be the basis for prosecution in a criminal case, especially when the primary act of bigamy itself remains unsubstantiated by foundational proof. The criminal law mandates not only specificity in allegation but also legal sufficiency in evidence, both of which are conspicuously absent herein. 7. Furthermore, the impugned order of cognizance suffers from a manifest non-application of judicial mind. The learned Magistrate appears to have proceeded on presumptive reasoning drawn from the alleged cohabitation of the principal accused with another woman and the subsequent statement of the complainant that such woman had “claimed” to be his wife. Such inference, in the absence of any supporting evidence as to the solemnization of marriage in the manner prescribed under law, is legally untenable. A penal provision such as Section 494 IPC, which contemplates serious consequences including imprisonment, cannot be invoked merely on the basis of surmise or social inferences drawn from the conduct of the accused parties. The threshold for summoning an accused in such circumstances is not suspicion, however grave, but prima facie satisfaction, based on legally cognizable material, that the offence alleged is made out. 8. Accordingly, the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence of abetment under Sections 109 and 114 IPC, in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence pointing to any active facilitation, inducement, or participation in the purported second marriage, amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the court. It is axiomatic that criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument of harassment or vendetta, particularly when no offence is disclosed against the petitioners even on a prima facie reading of the complaint and the supporting statements. The invocation of criminal jurisdiction in such a casual and sweeping manner does not comport with the foundational principles of criminal justice, which require a stringent standard of scrutiny before liberty-restricting processes are set in motion. 9. In light of the foregoing analysis and the absence of any material that could reasonably sustain the prosecution of the present petitioners under Sections 494, 109, or 114 IPC, the continuation of proceedings against them would amount to a travesty of justice and an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. 9. In light of the foregoing analysis and the absence of any material that could reasonably sustain the prosecution of the present petitioners under Sections 494, 109, or 114 IPC, the continuation of proceedings against them would amount to a travesty of justice and an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order of taking cognizance dated 24.02.2004 passed by the learned trial court, in so far as it pertains to the petitioners herein, is quashed and set aside.