Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. (2). This petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 137/1986 Kamla vs. Gyaneshwar Prasad, on 11th July, 1995 directing the charge under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code be framed against the petitioner. (3). A perusal of the record of the lower court shows that on 21st April, 1986 Smt. Kamla non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur against the petitioner. According to the averments made in the complaint Smt. Kamla was married with the petitioner on 18th Feb., 1980 at Ajmer, according to Hindu rites. The petitioner is a resident of Jodhpur. It was at the instance of the petitioner that aforesaid marriage took place at Ajmer. After their marriage Smt. Kamla and the petitioner lived together as wife and husband for 3 days at Ajmer, thereafter, Smt. Kamla went to Udaipur and the peti- tioner went to Jodhpur. Smt. Kamla was posted as Assistant Teacher at Udaipur. According to complaint the petitioner demanded money from Smt. Kamla. On 22nd June, 1980 when Smt. Kamla went to her sisters house at Kota and from Kota Smt. Kamla accompanied by her sister and brother-in-law went to the house of the petitioner at Jodhpur. At Jodhpur when Smt. Kamla reached the house of the peti- tioner, petitioners mother and sister came out of the house and did not permit Smt. Kamla to stay there. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner solicited proposals for his marriage by giving advertisement in the newspaper and he celebrated his second marriage with Smt. Sudha daughter of Mohan Singh Bhandari resident of Bedala, Udaipur. After his second marriage he started living with Smt. Sudha at Jodhpur. The case of the non-petitioner No.2 is that the petitioner has committed an offence by celebrating his second marriage with Smt. Sudha without the dissolution of his first marriage with the non-petitioner No.2. (4). After his second marriage he started living with Smt. Sudha at Jodhpur. The case of the non-petitioner No.2 is that the petitioner has committed an offence by celebrating his second marriage with Smt. Sudha without the dissolution of his first marriage with the non-petitioner No.2. (4). On the basis of the complaint filed by Smt. Kamla the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur, took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code, examined Smt. Kamla PW-1 and vide order dated 3rd May, 1986 issued process against the petitioner under Sec. 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the Revision Petition No. 69/86 Gyaneshwar Prasad vs. Smt. Kamla and Ors. in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Udaipur, against the order dated 3rd May, 1986, the Revision Petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur on 2nd September, 1988. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 356/88 was filed before this court. On 10th April, 1989 the petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by this court and it was observed that prima facie there was evidence to take cognizance against the accused. (5). After the appearance of the petitioner before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur proceeded the record of the evidence of the non-petitioner No.2 before framing of the charge. Smt. Kamla PW 1, Jamna Lal PW 2 and Vinod PW 3 were examined by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur. Thereafter, he heard the arguments before char- ge and by his order passed on 15th July, 1995 he found that there were grounds to frame charge against the petitioner in respect of an offence punishable under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied upon the statement of Smt. Kamla PW-1 and held that there was prima-facie evidence to show that the petitioner had contacted second marriage with Smt. Sudha. (6). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no sufficient evidence to frame charge against the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings pending before the lower court adverse to be quashed under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (6). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no sufficient evidence to frame charge against the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings pending before the lower court adverse to be quashed under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 has submitted that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. (7). Mr. attention has been drawn to the decision of Honble Supreme Court given in the case of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay (1), in which it has been held that if the trial Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out then charge has to be framed. (8). I have carefully gone through the record of the case. The non-petitioner No.2 has in support of her case examined herself and two other persons, namely, Shri Jamna Lal PW 2 and Shri Vinod PW 3. None of these witnesses have given any such facts on the basis of personal knowledge but were based on information that the petitioner has celebrated second marriage with Smt. Sudha. The information about the second marriage was obtained by the non-petitioner No.2 from other persons particularly Shri Yashwant Singh who has been cited as witness No.10 in the list of the witnesses filed by the non-petitioner No.2. The record of the case shows that Shri Yashwant Singh was not produced by the non- petitioner No.2 for examination in court. Similarly, Pandit Murlidhar has also not been examined. The evidence of the non- petitioner No.2 was closed by the trial Court and a Revision against that order was filed but it was rejected. Consequently, the non-petitioner No.2 could not produce evidence to support her story. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice it is necessary that the trial Court should summon Shri Yash- want Singh Bhandari who is cited as witness No. 10 in the list of witnesses filed on 20th June, 1986 and such other persons as witnesses as are likely to shed light on the question whether the petitioner contacted the second marriage or not. (9). (9). For reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 15th July, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur is hereby set aside and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is hereby directed that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur shall issue process to enforce the attendance of Shri Yashwant Singh Bhandari and examine him under Sec. 165 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of ascertaining whether the witnesses has or has not any personal knowledge about the alleged second marriage of the petitioner with Smt. Sudha and if Shri Yashwant Singh Bhandari has any personal knowledge about the above matter then examine him so as to elicite all relevant facts. After the examination of Shri Yashwant Singh Bhandari, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur may further examine such other witnesses as he considers necessary in the interest of justice to be examined in this case and after their examination the question of framing the charge or of discharging the petitioner shall be decided according to law. (10). A copy of this order along with the record of the lower court be dispatched to the lower Court within a fort-night.