O. P. JAIN, J. A case under Section 494 read with Section 114, I. P. C. has been registered against the applicants and one Rishimuni on the allegation that Rishimuni has married applicant No. 4 Smt. Khanjanti, on 5th July, 1987 during the life-time of his first wife, Smt. Sobhawati, opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 actively assisted in the alleged second marriage of Rishimuni. 2. This application, under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , has been filed to quash the charges under Sections 494 and 114, I. P. C. framed against the applicants The grounds mentioned by the applicants are that the complainant had failed to establish that all the ceremonies of a valid marriage were performed. The learned counsel for the applicants has cited the cases Ram Pyari Devi v. Ramanand, 1984 ACC 260 and Smt. Muftd v. Smt. Noorjahan, Allahabad Criminal Cases (Summary of Cases No. 90 ). It has been held in the above cases that for prosecution under Section 494, I. P. C. performance of both marriages must be proved. 3. The record shows that the complainant, Smt. Sobhawati in her statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. has stated that she was married with Rishimuni and had a Daughter by him. In the suit filed by her, Rishimuni was restrained by the Munsifs Court from marrying again and that the appeal, filed by Rishimuni against that decree was dismissed. The complainants witnesses have also deposed that Smt. Sobhawati was married with Rishimuni. In the present application the marriage of Sobhawati with Rishimuni does not appear to be seriously challenged. 4. So far as the secound marriage is concerned, the complainants wit ness Shyama Charan in his statement dated 16th June, 1990, has stated as under: 5. The witness has further stated that the village Gadtholia, where the second marriage took place, is only one kilo metre. This witness was cross-examined but nothing has been elicited which may, prima facie, cast doubt on his evidence. 6. Under Section 246, Cr. P. C. Magistrate can frame charge if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chap. XIX. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant has laid down the quantum of proof necessary for conviction. Quantum of proof varies from stage to stage. P. C. Magistrate can frame charge if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chap. XIX. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant has laid down the quantum of proof necessary for conviction. Quantum of proof varies from stage to stage. Some evidence is required for taking cognizance, some more evidence is required for framing a charge and a heavy burden lies on the prosecution to secure conviction, under Section 494, I. P. C. 7. It was also argued that no sepecific role has j been attributed to the applicants. The record shows that applicant No. 4 is a girl who is alleged to have been married to Rishimuni during the continuance of the marriage of Rishimuni with Sobhawati. Applicant No. 4 is the father of Smt. Khajanti and applicant No. 3 is her brother. Shyama Charan, whose statement has been recorded above, has stated that these persons received the marriage party. 8. It cannot, therefore, be said that the learned Munsif committed any illegality in framing the charge against the applicants under Section 494 with Section 114, I. P. C. 9. In the result, the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is dismissed. Application dismissed. .