S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS who were accused 3 and 4 invoke the inherent powers of this court to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 30 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Hindupur. ( 2 ) IT is necessary to have look at the background of the facts in the criminal complaint one Dr. Lokendranath married one dr. P. Basaveswari on 16-5-1985 at Kumool. On account of certain differences in between them, a divorce petition by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage act was filed in the year 1990 in O. P. No. 218 of 1990 on the file of the Principal subordinate Judge, Kurnool. The decree of divorce was passed on 4-3-1991. It is the case of the complainant viz. , Mubasheera Meenakshi that on 4-7-1989 her marriage was performed with the said dr. Lokendranath at Lakshminarasimha swamy temple at Peddadalavatam Village by exchanging garlands during the subsistence of his marriage with dr. Basaveswari. It is also alleged that the said Dr. Lokendranath and Mubbasheera @ meenakshi lived together as wife and husband for a period of three years in the house bearing Door No. 3/5/27-A situated near Balaji Talkies, Hindupur and for another period of three years in the house bearing door No. 26/4/623/b situated in Melapuram street and finally shifted to the house bearing door No. 3/247, situate in Sevamandir. It was further alleged that she conceived a male child Suseelnath Sai on 11-2-1994 in the Government Hospital, Hindupur. It is further alleged that on 31-12-1994 the petitioners and other accused including dr. Lokendranath necked Mubbasheera @ Meenakshi and her son out of his house and put a lock to the house. ( 3 ) ON the strength of the report given by the said Mubbasheera @ Meenakshi, a case was registered under Sections 147, 323,341 r/w 149 IPC and thereafter the Inspector of police laid the charge-sheet on 21-12-1996 which was taken on file on 1-2-1997 under sections 147,448, 323, 341 r/w 149 IPC and sections 494 r/w 109 IPC and 498-A thereafter, charges were framed under sections 147, 448, 323, 341, 494, 498-A, 109 and 494 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same accused 3 and 4 preferred this petition. Aggrieved by the same accused 3 and 4 preferred this petition. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that there is no bar to entertain the second criminal application invoking inherent powers of this court. It is also contended that the complaint itself disclosed that there is no valid marriage and when there is no valid marriage, no offence under Section 494 of IPC is made out. It is also contended that the question of framing of charges under Sections 109 and 494 of ipc against A-3 and A-4 does not arise. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not a case of inherent powers to be exercised since the court has declined once to exercise inherent powers previously when the matter has be placed before court. ( 6 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions, normally when this court has an opportunity to look at the matter and declines to exercise its inherent powers there is no need to look into the matter for the second time. The only consideration that has to be kept in mind by the court is whether any abuse of process is taking place in this case and whether injustice will be caused by making the accused to undergo trial. The complaint itself does not disclose a valid and legal marriage. A close scrutiny of the complaint and the material discloses that Dr. Lokendranath gave divorce to the first wife. The marriage performed in between Dr. Lokendranath and Mubbasheera @ Meenakshi during the subsistence of the marriage even before granting of divorce, certainly made the marriage an invalid marriage. It is unfortunate that the lower court has missed this aspect. Moreover Mubbasheera is said to be a Muslim prior to her marriage with dr. Lokendranath and the marriage said to have been taken place in a Hindu Temple without conversion into Hinduism. Therefore, there cannot be a valid marriage between muslim girl and a Hindu man before Hindu temple without conversion as per the sastric Law. If the contents of the complaint are taken into consideration, certainly there is miscarriage of justice. It is not known how the lower court missed the thing and taken the case on file. Once her marriage is not valid, the question of challenging another marriage of Dr. If the contents of the complaint are taken into consideration, certainly there is miscarriage of justice. It is not known how the lower court missed the thing and taken the case on file. Once her marriage is not valid, the question of challenging another marriage of Dr. Lokendranath with another woman does not arise, moreover, the charge framed under Section 498-A does not stand for judicial scrutiny since she is not the legal by weded wife. ( 7 ) IN view of the miscarriage of justice that took place, I feel that this court has to interfere and set right the things and put them in order. In so far as charges under sections 494,498-A and 494 read with 109 are concerned they are liable to be quashed. In so far as the other charges are concerned viz. , forming of unlawful assembly, necked her out of the house etc. , decision can be arrived at only after verifying the truth of the same during trial. ( 8 ) TO sum up, I find that miscarriage of justice occurred in this case. In so far as charges framed under Sections 494, 498-A and 494 read with 109 are quashed and in so far as the other charges are concerned the trial shall go on. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is ordered.