Order.- This petition is directed against the order dated 16th August, 1977 passed by the Principal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak, in C.C. No. 889 of 1977, taking cognizance of the offences under sections 494, and 494 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and directing issue of progress against the petitioners. 2. Though this is filed as Criminal Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is being disposed of in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, in view of the fact that when petition was filed, the question whether a revision would lie or not as against such orders was still to be settled, and by now it is settled that a revision would lie as such an order is not an interlocutory order within the ambit of section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Respondent-1 Lakshmawa filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, alleging that respondents 2 and 3 were married with the connivance of the petitioners though she was the wife of Gireppa and her marriage was subsisting. On 16th August, 1977 the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of respondent-1 and one witness by name Mahalingappa, and directed issue of process. 4. Sri. B.V. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged that respondent-1 had filed a complaint earlier and the same had ended in an order of discharge according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (to be hereinafter referred to as the old Code) and that fact ought to have been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. He nextly urged that the evidence of the petitioner and her witness Mahalingappa did not disclose a valid second marriage between respondent 2 and respondent 3 and therefore, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences and issued process. 5. The order-sheet dated 11th August, 1977 discloses that the learned Magistrate has borne in mind that earlier complaint filed by respondent-1 had ended in discharge under section 259 of the old Code. He has opined that as it was an order of discharge, it did not come in the way of respondent-1 filing a fresh complaint. The view expressed by the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the first contention of Sri Deshpande fails. 6. He has opined that as it was an order of discharge, it did not come in the way of respondent-1 filing a fresh complaint. The view expressed by the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the first contention of Sri Deshpande fails. 6. On 16th August, 1977 the Magistrate decided to take cognizance of the offence, and, hence recorded the statements of respondent-1 and her witness Mahalingappa on oath as per section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (to be hereinafter referred to as the new Code). Recording of statements of the complainant and the witness or witnesses of the complainant on oath under section 200 of the new Code, is for the purpose of of finding out as to against whom process is to be issued. If, on examining so, the Magistrate is unable to pin point the concerned accused persons so as to tissue process against them, he may postpone issuance of process and hold an enquiry under section 202 of the new Code and proceed according to the provisions of that section. If process is issued, the trial in such cases proceeds as per the provisions of section 244 and onwards of the new Code. Therefore, to contend that the material available in the statements of the complainant and her witness Mahalingappa, is not sufficient to establish the marriage according to the custom, of respondents 2 and 3, is not proper because such evidence can be adduced during the trial which commences as per section 244 of the new Code. That is still to be seen. Hence, this contention is premature. 7. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed.