' Khushi Mohammad, Mst, Satara Bibi and Habib filed this petition under section 561-A, Cr P. C., for quashing the proceedings in complaint titled Nazar Mohammad v. Khushi Mohammad etc. Under sections 494 and 498, P. P. C., pending in the Court of Magistrate, Kot Addu.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Mst. Satara petitioner was not the wedded wife of Nazar Mohammad complainant-respondent and the marriage between the two had been dissolved by a competent Court on 6th May 19 8, and thus, the complaint could not proceed under sections 494 and 498, P.
11. C.; that the learned Magistrate discharged Mst. Satara petitioner vide his order dated 25th February 1974, but subsequently he reviewed his previous order, on 25th June 1974, and re- summoned Mst. Satara and the said order was an illegal one. The learned counsel for Nazar Mohammad respondent contended that the respondent filed suit against Mst. Satara and others, for restitution of conjugal rights and his suit was decreed on 10ila January 1969, and the Judge, Family Court gave a finding that Mst. Satara was the wedded wife of the respondent.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file.
Mst. Satara petitioner No, 2 was married to Nazar Mohammad respondent on 27th November 1966, and the Nikah was duly entered in the Nikah register. Mst. Satara filed suit for dissolution of marriage on 5th January 1968, before Judge Family Court, Lahore. Nazar Mohammad respondent resided at Kot Addu, District Muzaffargath. He was not personally served. He was served by publication in the newspaper. Ex parte decree was passed against him on 6th May 1968. Nazar Mohammad respondent filed suit on 13th November 1967, for restitution of conjugal rights. This suit had been filed before Mst. Satara had filed suit for dissolution of marriage. Suit of Nazar Mohammad was decreed on 10th January 1969. Nazar Mohammad tiled execution petition on 16th April 1969. It has been admitted in the present petition that petitioner No, 1 married petitioner No, 2 and at the time of their marriage, the marriage of petitioner No, 2 with respondent No, 1 did not subsist and as such, no offence under sec.Ions 494 and 498, P. P. C. Was committed. The petitioner did not place any document on the record to show as to when petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 got married.
It is also a matter of evidence as to whether Nazar Mohammad respondent had informed the petitioners that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights had been passed against Mst. Satara and others by a Court of A competent jurisdiction. Hence this matter cannot be determined in the present petition. Both the parties would produce their respective evidence before the learned Magistrate, who would give a finding as to whether the offences under sections 494 and 498, P. P. C.
Had been committed or not.
' The learned Magistrate discharged Mst. Satara vide his order dated 25th February 1974.
Subsequently, he came to the finding that she had been -discharged inadvertently and vide his order dated 25th June 1974, summoned her. If Mst. Satara is aggrieved of the said order that the Magistrate could not review his earlier order, she can avail of legal remedy against the said order.
Similarly, Nazar Mohammad respondent can also file a revision petition, if so advised, against the order dated 25-2.1974, whereby Mst. Satara was discharged.
4. So far as petition for quashing the proceedings is concerned, in the circumstances of the case, I do not find any sufficient ground to quash the proceedings.
' With these observations, the petition is dismissed.