ORDER Vaman Rao, J. - This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 136 of 1999 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court at Hyderabad in which the petitioner-accused No. 2 along with other accused faces charges under Sections 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The petitioner herein is alleged to be the woman with whom accused No. 1 had contracted second marriage while his marriage with the de-facto complainant was still subsisting and thus she committed the offence under Section 494, Indian Penal Code. A reading of the charge sheet would show that she is also sought to be fastened with liability under Sections 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that offences under Sections 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code can by no stretch of imagination be attributed to the petitioner herein. In regard to the offence under Section 494, Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner had married the accused No. 1 with the knowledge that he was already married the de facto complainant and as such the proceedings in C.C.No. 136 of 1999 against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor raises a preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has moved the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate with an application for discharging the petitioner herein and that the learned Magistrate having dismissed the application the petitioner ought to have approached the Sessions Judge in revision inasmuch as she has not done so this petition cannot be maintained. I do not think this contention has any substance. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings against her on the ground that the material placed by the prosecution before the Court does not make out any offence against the petitioner herein. Mere fact that the petitioner had given an application before the trial Court for discharging on the same grounds on which the present petition is filed, does not debar him from approaching this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code 5. Mere fact that the petitioner had given an application before the trial Court for discharging on the same grounds on which the present petition is filed, does not debar him from approaching this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code 5. It is fairly conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor that as far as offences under Sections 498 and 406, Indian Penal Code are concerned there is nothing to connect the petitioner with these alleged offences. In regard to the offence under Section 494, Indian Penal Code the only ground on which the petitioner could not have been charged for this offence would be on the ground that she abetted the commission of the said offence by contracting second marriage with the accused No. 1 while his marriage with the first wife was subsisting. The charge sheet and the depositions of witnesses on which the charge sheet is based do not seem to have anything to suggest that the petitioner had the knowledge that A-1 the husband was already married when the marriage of A-1 and the petitioner was performed. On the other hand, the statements of the de facto complainant, brother of the de facto complainant and her father would show that when they approached the petitioner after her marriage with accused No. 1, the petitioner represented to them that she had absolutely no knowledge that A-1 was already married to the de facto complainant. In view of these alleged denials the prosecution has not collected any material during investigation to suggest otherwise namely that the petitioner herein had knowledge of A-1s earlier marriage. In the absence of such material, it is not possible to fasten a criminal liability for the offence under Section 494, Indian Penal Code to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it will be abuse of the process of law if the petitioner is made to undergo ordeal of trial along with the other accused. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 136 of 1999 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad as far as the petitioner-A-2 is concerned shall stand quashed. Petition allowed.