1. Admit. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1, finally. Respondent No.2 though served, remained absent.

2. Learned counsel for Applicants has submitted that offence was registered at Nehrunagar Police Station, Mumbai bearing Crime No.204 of 2013 under Sections 494, 498A, 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and for the same offence Respondent No.2 filed private complaint (M.A. No.9 of 2014) R.C.C. No.19 of 2014 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda for offence punishable under Section 494 read with 34 of I.P.C. against Applicants. Learned Counsel for Applicants submitted that F.I.R. filed by Respondent No.2 at Nehrunagar Police Station, Mumbai and private complaint filed at Paranda, are having similar allegations. It is argued that when F.I.R. was registered, such complaint could not have been filed. Counsel further submitted that the copy of Complaint at Exhibit E shows that the Magistrate merely recorded verification of the complainant-Respondent No.2 and has, on 18th January 2014, issued process against all the accused persons. The counsel referred to the addresses of the accused p