( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the accused in CC No. 15057 of 1997 on the file of the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for an offence under Section 494 is seeking quashing of the complaint by resorting to Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The respondent-complainant alleged that the petitioner, was found on 16th of May, 1992 to have had an extra marital relationship with one Smt. Nageena and had taken the said Nageena as an wife during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner and thus, the accused-petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 494 of the IPC.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has sought to challenge the taking of cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC on the ground that in O. S. No. 130 of 1995 filed by the complainant, the legitimacy of the marriage between the complainant and the petitioner is in question, besides the petitioner's application for amendment in MC 232 of 1996 on the file of the family Court, Bangalore. Thus the very foundation of the complainant's case is in question before the competent civil Court and therefore the proceedings on the criminal side instituted by the respondent would have to be quashed by exercising the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that in the event of the decree in O. S. No. 130/95 being passed in favour of the petitioner, the alleged second marriage of the petitioner in contravention of Section 494, IPC would have to be fall to the ground and therefore the proceedings initiated by the complainant (respondent herein) would have to be terminated. Ultimately, the whole contention boils down on to the situation as to whether the civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings pending between the parties should be allowed to continue or whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed as now sought.

( 4 ) EVEN if it were to be assumed that the petitioners did not succeed in OS No. 130 of 1995 holding that the petitioner's marriage with the respondent was void, by reason of the previous divorce in the U. S. A. , being not in accordance with law, the finding would have to be canvassed in the criminal Court in support of the contention of the petitioner and a trial would have to be gone through, as undisputedly the allegations made in the complaint disclose an offence under Section 494, I. P. C. A similar question came up for consideration in AIR 1984 SC 1693 (P. Jayappan v. S. K. Peruaml, First Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin) the Supreme Court in para 5 of the Judgment observed thus (at page 1695) :"5. . . . No other legal bar for the institution of the proceedings is urged except stating that in the event of the petitioner being exonerated in the reassessment proceedings, the prosecutions may have to be dropped. It is true that as observed by this Court in Uttam Chand v. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar, (1982) 133 ITR 909 (SC), the prosecution once initiated may be quashed in the light of a finding favourable to the assessee recorded by an authority under the Act subsequently in respect of the relevant assessment proceedings but that decision is no authority for the proposition that no proceedings can be initiated at all under Section 276c and Section 277 as long as some proceeding under the Act in which there is a chance of success of the assessee is pending. A mere expectation of success in some proceeding in appeal or reference under the Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the criminal proceedings under Section 276c and Section 277 of the Act. In the criminal case all the ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in order to secure the conviction of the accused. The Criminal Court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Act having a bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed under the Act. It does not,