M. R. MULLICK, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed for quashing the T. R. Case No. 19 of 1982 of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan under section 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who is one of the accused of the above case bas challenged the fresh issuing of process against the present petitioner and others on the self same petition of complaint filed on 16. 12. 1985 after the first complaint on the same facts filed in 1982 ended in the discharge of the accused on 8. 10. 1985 on the ground of cognizance not having taken validly. It is also contended that petition of complaint did not disclose any allegation against the present petitioner and the issuing of process is bad in law. ( 3 ) THE revision petition is contested both by the State as well as the opposite party No. 2. ( 4 ) IT is contended that when the first complaint was found to be illegal on the ground that the cognizance of the offence was not validly taken the fresh complaint on the same facts was quite maintainable and second complaint cannot be quashed. It is also contended that there are sufficient materials before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue process against the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have carefully perused on record of the case. I have seen the order dated 8. 10. 1985. As the parties agreed that the cognizance was not validly taken the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the present petitioner and others from the bail bond. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate however fixed a date for the opposite party No. 2 to take steps in the matter. But after discharging the accused no such order could be passed. However, a fresh complaint was filed on 16. 12. 1985. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a process against several accused including the petitioner under S. 498/109 of the IP. C. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has produced before me the decision of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Arun Kumar Dhar. It has been held that in decision that when the cognizance of the first complaint was held to be illegally taken and the accused were discharged, a second complaint lodged on the self same facts even after the period of limitation was entertainable. It has been held that in decision that when the cognizance of the first complaint was held to be illegally taken and the accused were discharged, a second complaint lodged on the self same facts even after the period of limitation was entertainable. On behalf of the opposite party No. 2 no decision could be cited that in such circumstances second complaint cannot be filed. So when admittedly the accused was discharged from the first case on the ground that the cognizance had not been validly taken of second complaint on 16. 12. 1985 could be entertained by the learned Magistrate. However, I find that the learned Magistrate did not give a separate case number to that second complaint but the second complaint was allowed to proceed under the original case number. But the learned Magistrate must give a new number to the second complaint. But only because a new number has not been given to second complaint the second complaint cannot be quashed. On behalf of the opposite party, it is contended that the learned Magistrate also did not take any cognizance of the case formally, but straightway issued process. But it is well settled that taking cognizance is not a formal matter. Court takes a matter for judicial consideration to further proceed with the matter; that is taking cognizance. When in this case he received the petition of complaint and permitted the Opposite party No. 2 to produce her witnesses that shows that he took cognizance and then examined witnesses under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code. As soon as- the Magistrate does it he must be held to have taken cognizance and then proceeded with the matter by examining witnesses. On examining the witnesses he issued process. So it is clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that be bas taken cognizance of the offence and then examined the witnesses and issued process. The second contention of the petitioner is that there is no prima fade material to issue process against the present petitioner. I have perused the second complaint and the statement of witnesses under section 200. The complainant has specifically stated that the petitioner along with others abetted of the main accused to commit the offence of bigamy punishable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code. I have perused the second complaint and the statement of witnesses under section 200. The complainant has specifically stated that the petitioner along with others abetted of the main accused to commit the offence of bigamy punishable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code. So there was sufficient ground for the learned Magistrate to issue a process against the petitioner under section 494/109 Indian Penal Code. ( 6 ) IN the circumstance I am not of the view that the Criminal proceeding which was initiated against present petitioner on the second complaint filed on 16/12/1985 is liable to be quashed. The revision petition be dismissed. Let the record be sent down to the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law after giving a fresh number to complaint filed on 16/12/1985. Revision petition dismissed. .