AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 145 wordsP.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri A.R. Dubey, learned Counsel for the revisionists. The revision is against the summoning order u/s 494, I.P.C. The only question raised in this revision is that the complaint was filed beyond expiry of period provided in Section 468(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that alleged 2nd marriage was solemnized in the year 1980 and the complaint was filed in the year 1988.
The revisionist was directed to file copy of the complaint and statement of the complainant and witnesses examined under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure but the same has not been filed.
The question raised in this revision can be dealt with by the Magistrate concerned as it would require adducing of evidence by the parties.
The revision is, therefore, rejected and the revisionist may press the point before the Magistrate concerned.