D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 3/11/1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Soonimalwa, District Hoshangabad, discharging the accused- non-applicant for alleged offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissing the complaint. According to the complainants case, Smt. Sulekha is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. The marriage took place in the year 1982. It is then alleged that the non-applicant- accused, who has his wife Latibai alive and living with him and has also four children from her, contracted a second marriage with Sulekha wife of the present applicant on 18. 3. 1985, thus, constituting an offence of bigamy under Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order held that in the prosecution form the alleged offence of bigamy. Sulekha can only be the main accused and the non-applicant, who is alleged to have contracted marriage with her, cannot be made accused. He, therefore, discharged the non-applicant and dismissed the complaint. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Magistrate has grossly erred in discharging the accused by misreading and misinterpreting the provisions of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant supports the order of the Magistrate and argues that the offence of bigamy is against the other partner in the marriage and, therefore, the only accused could have been the wife of the applicant who contracted the second marriage, but, her second husband could not be accused of an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) I have carefully looked into the provisions of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant part of which reads as:494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.- Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. In the commentary of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 23rd edition, Volume 2, at page 1911, the object and cope of the Section has been explained on the basis of the decision of the Court, thus. In the commentary of Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 23rd edition, Volume 2, at page 1911, the object and cope of the Section has been explained on the basis of the decision of the Court, thus. This section punishes the offence known to English law as bigamy. It makes the offence of bigamy-punishable both as regards a person, having a wife living, marrying another and as regards a wife, having her husband living, remarrying, in any case in which such remarriage would be void by reason of its taking place during the life of such wife or husband. The person whom the woman has remarried cannot be punished under this section. He can only be charged with abetment of that offence. The mere fact that the singular expression is used in this Section will not sustain the contention that the same marriage and the facts giving risk to that marriage will, by themselves, result into more than one distinct offence. Where both the parties to a second marriage had their spouses living at the time of the second marriage it could not be said that the same second marriage between them would have to be treated as resulting into two separate offences of bigamy. ( 4 ) FROM the above contents of section 494 read in the light of the above commentary of the learned authors, it is not difficult to see that where both the parties to a second marriage had their spouses living at the time of the second marriage both would be guilty of one offence of bigamy and can be made accused. Merely because wife Sulekha was not made as one of the accused, there was no legal justification for the trying Magistrate to discharge the non-applicant and dismiss the complaint. Sulekha could have been allowed to be added as an accused subsequently, if the complainant so desired, but the other accused namely the non-applicant can also be prosecuted for an offence of bigamy. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 3/11/1987 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Soonimalwa, is hereby set aside. The case is remitted to that Court with directions to frame charge under section 494 of the I. P. C. against the accused and to proceed with the trial. Petition allowed. .