( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in CC No. 482 of 1995 before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad (for short the Mahila Court ).

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: The 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 31-1-1985. At the time of marriage he was working with M/s. Raasi Ceramic Industries, Hyderabad. They have two children bom on 25-10-1985 and 5-6-1987. Towards the end of 1986, a Swedish Company selected the 1st petitioner as a Technical Consultant/ceramic Design Engineer, initially for a period of six months which was extended further in November, 19s7. The 2nd respondent joined the 1st petitioner along with her two children, Smt. Anusuya, the elder sister of the 2nd respondent and Sri Narayana, the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent at the expense of the 1st petitioner. Subsequently differences cropped between the 1 st petitioner and the 2nd respondent which led to a decree of divorce granted by the District Court in Nacka, Sweden on 28-3-1994 under the Swedish Marriage Code of Judicial Procedure. On 2-11-1994 the Swedish Court granted the custody of children to the 2nd respondent who also got the family house. The 1st petitioner is paying the maintenance at the rate of Swedish Kamavar 1500 for each child. The 1st petitioner along with his two sons had acquired Swedish Citizenship. The 2nd respondent \\~as granted Permanent Residence Permit on 27-9-1989 as she was not keen on acquiring Swedish Citizenship, The Permanent Residence Permit was being renewed and -is valid upto 27-9-1998. While granting the decree for divorce, the final judgment of the Swedish Court stated that the aggrieved party could prefer an appeal before the Swedish High Court before 23-11-1994. However, the 2nd respondent did not prefer any appeal. She accepted the conditions specified in the said judgment. She continues to stay in Sweden enjoying the benefits of the divorced spouse in terms of the Swedish Law as provided by the Swedish Social Office and Social Insurance Office. The petitioner No. 1 got married to the 6th petitioner on 11-5-1995. A certificate of marriage was issued under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Marriage Registrar on 20-5-1995 at Nellorc, Andhra Pntdesh.

( 3 ) WHILE so, the 2nd respondent filed CC No. ls2 of 1995 on the file of the Mahila Court, making allegations of cruelty, bigamy, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 498 (A), 494, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ). In the said complaint, the petitioners 1 to 7 are shown as Accused, Aggrieved by the said complaint, the present Writ Petition is filed for quashing the same on various grounds under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) THE main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint is initiated maliciously at the instance of the 3rd respondent who happens to be the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent, who is an influential Police Officer, The 2nd respondent though residing at Sweden came to India in 1995 and at the instance of the 3rd respondent initiated the complaint. The Counsel submitted that the FIR docs not disclose even a prima facie offence of either bigamy, forgery or cruelty and, therefore, the investigation should not be allowed to proceed as it would amount to harassment of the 1st petitioner. If the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent did not disclose a prima facie offence, it is open to this Hon ble High Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, he relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Rupan Deal Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194, Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Laxmi, 1991 (3)SCC 451 etc.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as regards the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, there was a valid divorce in accordance with law by the District Court at Nacka, Sweden. The divorc