Heard Shri. S. V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri. Anjan De. learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Smt. Wandile, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2.

2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant takes exception to the order dated 277-2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 14/2006 thereby condoning the delay and dismissing the revision application preferred against the order dated 19-9-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Chandrapur issuing process against the applicant in Criminal Complaint No.327/2001.

3. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present application are as under:

Respondent no. 1 Yashodhara married Krishna Bhitre on 13-04-1990 at Nagpur. On 6-8-2001 respondent no.1 filed Criminal Complaint No.327/2001 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chandrapur against Klishna Bhitre, the present applicant and two others inter alia alleging that in July, 1996 Krishna Bhitre married the present applicant and the other two accused took part in performance of bigamous marriage of Krishna with the present applicant. The complaint was filed under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued process against all the accused. Against issuance of the process the present applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application along with the application for condonation of delay bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 14/2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur by the Judgment and order dated 27th July. 2006 impugned herein dismissed the revision application holding that the order issuing process against the present applicant was correctly passed.

4. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the present application invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge erred in law in holding that prima facie case under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present applicant. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the applicant can not be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 and it is the only husband of respondent no.1 who can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In so far as Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Mr. Sirpurkar submitted that the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not made out as against the applicant inasmuch as the applicant is neither the relative of the husband of respondent no. 1 nor cruelty has been established even prima facie on the part of the applicant. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order issuing process passed by the learned Magistrate as well the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge deserve to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra Mr. De, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the applicant can be termed as relative of the husband of respondent no.1 and that the very fact that the husband of respondent no. 1 entered into bigamous marriage with the applicant clearly makes out a case of cruelty under clause (a) of the explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. De fairly conceded that the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. is not made out against the present applicant. Mrs. Wandile, learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is clearly made out against the present applicant inasmuch as she has to be treated as relative of the respondent no.1 for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and further the very fact that the applicant has entered into bigamous marriage establishes cruelty on the part of the present applicant.

7. In view of the rival submissions, the qu