JUDGMENT : J. M. Khazi, J. In this appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of the code of criminal procedure, complainant has challenge the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused No.1 by allowing the appeal filed by him, challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Complainant is the wife of accused No.1. She filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against accused Nos.1 to 4, alleging offence punishable under sections 494, 496, 109 of IPC, contending that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 05.05.1992, and it was also registered before the registrar of marriage, Margoa, Goa on 23.04.1992. Her maiden name was Jyoti Tukaram Karekar. After her marriage, she was named as Deepa Ramanath Lotlikar by accused No.1. After the marriage, they stay together at Pedmen, Mapusa Taluku, Goa. 3.1 After few months, accused No.1 started harassing the complainant for dowry and acted roughly and cruelly. He subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty. He prevented her from going to her parental home, with great difficulty, she went to her parental home on 19.05.1993 for her first delivery. However, after the delivery accused No.1 refused to take her back to the matrimonial home. During late 1995 complainant came to know that accused No.1 has married accused No.2 on 16.07.1994. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of accused No.2. They knew that accused No.1 is already married. 3.2 After the marriage accused Nos.1 and 2 live together as husband and wife at Bilwan, Mapuca, Goa. accused No.2 has given birth to a son in May 1995. accused Nos.1 and 2 are living together along with their son. Even accused No.1 is masquerading accused No.2, as if she is Deepa Ramanath Lotlekar i.e., complainant and got prepared an election ID card and thereby all the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 494, 496 and 109 IPC. 4. Vide order dated 17.01.2001, the trial Court has taken cognizance and ordered for registration of the criminal case. 5. On 17.01.2001, the trial Court has recorded the sworn statement of complaint and one Krishna Revankar. Based on their testimony, vide order dated 16.09.2004, the trial Court has ordered for issue of summons to accused persons. 6. 4. Vide order dated 17.01.2001, the trial Court has taken cognizance and ordered for registration of the criminal case. 5. On 17.01.2001, the trial Court has recorded the sworn statement of complaint and one Krishna Revankar. Based on their testimony, vide order dated 16.09.2004, the trial Court has ordered for issue of summons to accused persons. 6. The accused have appeared and secured bail. 7. The trial Court has recorded the evidence before charge by examining the complainant and four witnesses as PW-1 to 5. They are also cross examined by the accused at the stage of evidence before charge, except PW4. 8. Based on the evidence before charge, the trial Court held that there is sufficient material to frame charge. Accordingly on 20.11.2007, the trial Court has framed charge against accused Nos.1 to 4. 9. Accused Nos.1 to 4 have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. After framing of charge, the accused have cross examine PW1, 2, 3 and 5. 11. During the course of their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C , the accused have denied the incriminating evidence by the complainant. 12. Accused have not led any defensive evidence 13. Vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2008, though the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4, it convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine Rs.5,000/- with the default sentence of imprisonment. 14. Accused No.1 challenged his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court in criminal appeal No.173/2008, which came to be allowed and he is acquitted by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction imposed by the trial Court. 15. Aggrieved by the same, complainant is before this Court contending that the impugned judgment and order is erroneous, considering the fact and evidence placed on record and as such liable to be set aside. The Sessions Court is in error in ignoring the evidence, particularly the document evidence pointing to the guilt of accused No.1. The Sessions Court has failed to analyze the reasons given by the trial Court for convicting accused No.1. The testimony of PWs-2 and 3 is supported and corroborated by the evidence of PW1. The documentary evidence placed on record prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 are having children by name Nahush and Swamini. The Sessions Court has failed to analyze the reasons given by the trial Court for convicting accused No.1. The testimony of PWs-2 and 3 is supported and corroborated by the evidence of PW1. The documentary evidence placed on record prove that accused Nos.1 and 2 are having children by name Nahush and Swamini. The presumption arising out of the public records is not at all controverter by the accused. The Sessions Court without referring to these documents has reversed well reasoned judgment of the trial Court and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the judgment and order of the trial Court be restored and hence the appeal. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for Accused No.1 supported the judgment and order of the Sessions Court. He would submit that the complainant has failed to prove the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 including the holding of essential ceremonies. There is no evidence to establish the performance of marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. In the absence of the same, the other evidence lead by the complainant is not sufficient to prove the marriage between them. He further submitted that after framing of charge, PWs-1 to 3 are further examined and it has viciated the trial. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, rightly the Sessions Court has reverse the judgment and order of the trial Court and pray to dismiss this appeal also. 17. In support of arguments, learned counsel for accused No.1 has relied upon the following decisions; (i) State of Karnataka vs S Dhandapani Modaliar ( Dhandapani ), 1992 Cri.L.J.24. (ii) Bhaurao Lokhande vs State of Maharastra ( Bhaurao Lokhande ), 1965 AIR (SC) 1564. (iii) Smt Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh ( Priya Bala ), 1971 (1) SCC 864 . (iv) Santi Deb Berma vs Kanchan Pravadevi ( Santi Deb ) , [1991 AIR (SC) 816] (v) Dolly Rani vs Manish Kumar Chanchal ( Dolly Rani ), (2024) 5 SCR 510 . (vi) Deepa Ramanath Loltekar vs Sri Ramnath Ananda Lotlekar and others ( Deepa Loltekar ), Crl.A.No.2566/2008 dated 29.08.2013.. 18. Heard arguments and perused the record. 19. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is necessary to examine the procedure to be adopted in a case filed on the basis of complaint i.e a case instituted otherwise then on a police report. 20. 18. Heard arguments and perused the record. 19. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is necessary to examine the procedure to be adopted in a case filed on the basis of complaint i.e a case instituted otherwise then on a police report. 20. As evident from Section 200 of Cr.P.C , a magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Section 203 of Cr.P.C requires that if after considering the statements on oath, (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses, the magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he shall dismiss the complaint, by recording briefly reasons for so doing. Section 204 of Cr.P.C deals with issue of process to the accused, when the complaint is not dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C . It provides that if in the opinion of magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, it may issue summons or warrant as the case maybe. 21. Section 204(2) of Cr.P.C mandates that the summons or warrant shall not be issued to the accused until a list of prosecution witnesses has been filed and wherein the proceedings instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. 22. Section 203 of Cr.P.C empowers the magistrate to dismiss the complaint for reasons to be recorded in writing, if, after considering the statements on oath, if any, of the complainant and of the witnesses, the magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 23. The simple meaning of these Sections makes it clear that for the purpose of proceeding against an accused based on complaint, it is not necessary that the complaint be in writing. After taking cognizance, the magistrate shall examine the complainant and his witnesses, (if any) on oath, which is popularly called as recording sworn statement and reduce their statements in writing and get their signatures. Therefore, examining the complainant and witnesses on oath is not mandatory. Only when the complainant wishes to examine himself and also his witnesses, they shall be examined. In a given case, the Court may proceeded against the accused only on the basis of complaint. 24. Therefore, examining the complainant and witnesses on oath is not mandatory. Only when the complainant wishes to examine himself and also his witnesses, they shall be examined. In a given case, the Court may proceeded against the accused only on the basis of complaint. 24. Section 204(2) of Cr.P.C also makes it clear that there is no need for giving the names of witnesses in the complaint itself and it may be filed subsequently before summons issued to the accused. Only to avoid any technicality, normally, it is found that in the complaint itself, the complainant lists the name of witnesses, which he is intending to examine. 25. Section 244 of Cr.P.C , deals with recording of evidence in any warrant case instituted on a complaint i.e instituted otherwise, than on a police report. Section 244(1) of Cr.P.C require the magistrate to take all such evidence as produced in support of the prosecution i.e complainant. Section 244(2) of Cr.P.C , enable the magistrate to issue summons to witness, directing him to attend or to produce any documents or other things. It means the complainant is required to examine all his witnesses, including those witnesses whose statements were recorded under section 204 of Cr.P.C . If the complainant has not examined any witness, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C , then also he is at liberty to examine any such witnesses he wants to examine. At this stage also the accused is at liberty to cross examine the complainant and also his witnesses. 26. Section 245 of Cr.P.C , deals with discharge of the accused, if upon considering the evidence referred to in Section 244 of Cr.P.C , the magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded, that no case is made out, which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction. Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C , makes it clear that the magistrate is at liberty to discharge the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded, he considers the charge to be groundless. 27. Section 246 of Cr.P.C , deals with the procedure when accused is not discharged and provides that if the accused is not discharged under Section 245 of Cr.P.C or at any previous stage and the magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground presuming that accused has committed a warrant triable offence, he shall frame charge in writing. 27. Section 246 of Cr.P.C , deals with the procedure when accused is not discharged and provides that if the accused is not discharged under Section 245 of Cr.P.C or at any previous stage and the magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground presuming that accused has committed a warrant triable offence, he shall frame charge in writing. When accused refuses to plead or does not plead or claims to be tried, or if the accused is not convicted on his plea of guilt, the magistrate shall require him to state whether he wishes to cross examine any, and if so, which of the witnesses for the prosecution, whose evidence has been taken. Those witnesses named by the accused shall be recalled and after cross examination and re-examination (if any) they shall be discharged. 28. Section 246(6) of Cr.P.C makes it clear that the evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall be next taken and after cross examination and re- examination, if any, they shall also be discharged. 29. The cumulative reading of these provisions makes it clear that after taking cognizance, the trial Court may examine the complainant and his witnesses, (if any) in order to ascertain whether there is any material to proceed against the accused. In a case where the magistrate proceeded against the accused without recording the sworn statement of the complainant and its witnesses or of the complainant alone, the complainant may give his evidence before charge and may also examine some of his witnesses on the basis of which the magistrate may proceed to frame charge against the accused. In case the complainant has not lead evidence before charge of any of the witnesses, he may examine them after the charge is framed. If the complainant has examined himself and any of the witnesses before framing of charge, after the charge is framed, at the instance of accused, the magistrate may permit accused to cross examine the complainant as well as any of such witnesses at his instance. 30. After framing of charge, the Court may permit examination of any of the remaining witnesses and after their cross examination and re-examination, if any discharge them. 30. After framing of charge, the Court may permit examination of any of the remaining witnesses and after their cross examination and re-examination, if any discharge them. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for accused that the complainant was required to examine all his witnesses at the stage of Section 200 of Cr.P.C itself and the trial Court ought not have permitted complainant to examine any of the witnesses before framing of charge and after framing of charge is not correct. The same is permissible under law. 31. In fact, the complainant has recorded sworn statement of himself and one witness i.e Krishna Revankar, who is subsequently examined as PW2. The rest of the witnesses are examined before framing of charge. Neither complainant nor his witnesses are examined in chief subsequent to the framing of charge. Since the accused has crossed- examined PWs1 to 5, at the stage of evidence before charge itself, he has not cross examined any of those witnesses subsequent to the framing of charge. 32. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is not in dispute that complainant is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and their marriage is subsisting. Therefore, in order to prove the allegation for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC, the complainant is required to establish that accused No.1 has married accused No.2. In the light of the ratio in the decisions relied upon by the accused, burden is on the complainant not only to prove the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2, but also to establish that all the essential ceremonies, including Homa and Saptapadi were held. 33. Admittedly, complainant is not an eye witness to the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. According to the complainant, PW4 Suresh Bhat is the Purohit who performed the marriage between accused No.1 and 2. However, during the examination in chief itself he has a stated that he did not know whether he has performed their marriage. However, he is not treated as hostile by the complainant and he is not subjected to cross examination suggesting that he has performed the marriage in question. Consequently, his evidence is not at all any help to prove the allegations against the accused. 34. PW3 Krishna Revankar is examined to prove the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. However, he is not treated as hostile by the complainant and he is not subjected to cross examination suggesting that he has performed the marriage in question. Consequently, his evidence is not at all any help to prove the allegations against the accused. 34. PW3 Krishna Revankar is examined to prove the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. However, his evidence indicate that he was invited to cook the food for the marriage. Though he has deposed that the marriage was performed in accordance with the Hindu rituals, his evidence does not state that he saw the marriage and he hasn't spoken to about the essential rituals held in the marriage. 35. The evidence of PW2 Ramakant is to the effect that accused No.3 invited him to the marriage of accused Nos.1 and 2, but he could not attend the said marriage. 36. It is pertinent to know that at the first instance, complainant filed a police complaint and the concerned police conducted investigation regarding the second marriage of accused No1. However, later the complainant was directed to file a private complaint. The evidence of PW5 Nayak is to the effect that during investigation along with the police and brother of complainant, he had been to the house of accused Nos.3 and 4 and they disclose that they have married their daughter i.e accused No.2 to a person by name Ramnath of Goa and accused No.2 is residing in Mapusa. Thereafter, he along with the police went to the house of Krishna and from the house of Krishna, they went to a temple and met a Purohit who informed them that he has performed the marriage. 37. Thus, The oral evidence led by the complainant is not of any useful to establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 have entered into a valid marriage. The requirement of essential such as Homa and Saptapadi are not proved. None of these independent witnesses have deposed regarding having participated in and witnessed the marriage. 38. The complainant has relied upon Ex.P3 and 4, the birth certificates of a son and daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2. However, these documents may only establish the fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of these children, but they are not proof of a valid marriage between them. 39. 38. The complainant has relied upon Ex.P3 and 4, the birth certificates of a son and daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2. However, these documents may only establish the fact that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of these children, but they are not proof of a valid marriage between them. 39. Consequently, the Sessions Court on re- appreciation of the entire evidence placed on record has come to a conclusion that the allegations against accused No.1 is also not proved and acquitted him. The conclusions arrived by the said Court is in accordance with the evidence on record and is no pity calling for interference by this Court. The result this petition also fails and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the complainant under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C is rejected (ii) The Impugned order dated 07.09.2017 in Crl.A.No.173/2008 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Karwar.U.K, sitting at Sirsi is here by confirmed. (iii) Send back the trial court records along with copy of this judgment forth with.