At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further and not to find out whether the accused will be ultimately convicted or acquitted.

DHARMADHIKARI, J. :- Respondent No. 1 in this application filed a complaint against the petitioners under S. 494 of the I.P.C. According to respondent No. 1 she was legally married to the petitioner on 10th of May 1964. For some days thereafter they lived together and then she was forced to leave the house of her husband and go to reside with her mother. It is her case in the complaint that since then she is living with her mother. It is also her case that the petitioner No. 1 was in the habit of developing illicit intimacy with different women from time to time. Originally accused No. 2 was employed by him as a domestic servant several years back. However, she was being treated as his mistress. She also came to know that accused No. 2 had given birth to a child on or about 30th Jan. 1975. When she made inquiries in this behalf she came to know from the Church record that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been shown as father and mother of the child in question and accused No. 1 had stated that he and accused No. 2 had married some time previously. She has further made a statement in the complaint itself that she will examine the representative from the Church for this purpose. She also stated that she will rely on the certificate issued by the Church. According to the complainant accused No. 2 gave birth to another child on 26th Dec. 1976 and she again obtained a copy of the hospital record and a copy of official certificate from the Bombay Municipal Corporation showing accused No. 1 as father and accused No. 2 as mother of the said child. According to the complainant here again accused No. 1 has told the hospital authorities that accused No. 2 is his wife. On these allegations she filed this complaint under S. 494 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court Mazgaon, Bombay after satisfying himself about the allegations made in the complaint passed an order on 3rd of March 1977 directing issue of process under S. 494 of the I.P.C. against accused No. 1 and under S. 494 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. against accused No. 2. It is this order which is challenged before us in this application which is filed under S. 482 of the Cri. P. C.

2. The petitioners in this case have contended before us that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed an error in issuing process when even it is assumed that all the allegations made in the complaint are true the complaint does not disclose any offence punishable under S. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioners none of the ingredients necessary to prove an offence under S. 494 of the Indian Penal Code are disclosed in the complaint. They further contended that this complaint has been filed with the sole intention of harassing him because of the previous litigation between the parties. It is the case of the petitioners before us that as essential ingredients of the offence under S. 494 are not even alleged in the complaint, the complaint does not disclose any offence at all and, therefore, the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing issue of process is not only illegal but is also without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be quashed under inherent powers of this court. According to the petitioners for proving an offence under S. 494 of the I.P.C. it is necessary that the complainant should allege as to when the marriage between the accused persons took place. In support of these contentions the petitioners are strongly relying upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court. However it is not necessary to make a reference to these decisions as to law on the subject is well settled.

3. It is by now well settled that at the stage of issuing process it is not the duty of the Court to find out as to whether the accused will be ultimately convicted or acquitted. The object of consideration of the merits of the case at this stage could only be to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for pr