JUDGMENT 1. -This misc. petition is directed against the order of framing charges against the petitioners under section 494 & 494/109 IPC. 2. Mr. Bhandari contended that there is no evidence on record to establish that Madho Singh had solemnised the second marriage as per essential religious rites and therefore the charges should be quashed. He relied on the case of Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1971 SC 115 in support of his contention that the second marriage must be legally valid. 3. Mr. Surana, on the other hand, contended that there is evidence on record of the second marriage and therefore, the charges should not be quashed. He pointed out that the complaint was filed on 18.7.1978 i.e. more than 20 years have elapsed but the petitioners have not allowed the trial to be completed by filing revisions and misc. petitions on one or the other grounds. 4. I have carefully considered the above arguments. There is no denying legal position that a charge under section 494IPC can be framed if there is material on record pointing that the second marriage was solemnised as per the provisions of Hindu Law. 5. Om Singh (PW 3) deposes that he had seen the marriage ceremony being performed in village Kotda where Madho Singh was being married as per customs with the daughter of Fatehdan. Baludan, who is father of the girl, deposes that he was informed about the marriage of Madho Singh with Kanchan by Sumerdan and Om Singh. The accused have not cross-examined Om Singh on his evidence about seeing the marriage ceremony. Only two questions have been asked that Fatehdan is resident of Kotda and he has 3-4 daughters. On this part of the statement of Om Singh, not a single question has been asked that in village Kotda the marriage of one daughter of Fatehdan was solemnised with Madho Singh and this marriage was performed as per the customs. In the presence of this statement, it cannot be said that there is no evidence for framing a charge under section 494, IPC against Madho Singh for marrying another girl when he was already married to Ratan Kanwar. 6. However, on the evidence of Om Singh, charges cannot be framed against the other petitioners because Om Singh does not say that these petitioners were present at the time of the marriage. 6. However, on the evidence of Om Singh, charges cannot be framed against the other petitioners because Om Singh does not say that these petitioners were present at the time of the marriage. He even does not say that Fatehan was present. There is also no material on record on which it can be inferred that the petitioners No. 2 to 7 knew that Madho Singh was already married. Therefore, the charge of abetment could not be framed against them. 7. For the reasons stated above, the order of framing charges so far as it relates to the petitioners No. 2 to 7, is liable to be quashed. The order as regards Madho Singh, petitioner, is perfectly legal. 8. Consequently, the revision of Madho Singh is dismissed and the revision of petitioners No. 2 to 7 is accepted. The charges framed against them are quashed and they are discharged of the offences. 9. It is really shocking that the 'complaint of the offence of bigamy was filed in the year 1978 and the case is still at the initial stage of the trial. The trial could not proceed because the petitioners filed revisions or the misc. petitions again and again. Any way, now for the early disposal of the case, it is directed that it shall be heard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The case shall stand transferred to his Court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case within three months positively.Petition partly allowed. *******