JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri. S. V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri. Anjan De. learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Smt. Wandile, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2. 2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant takes exception to the order dated 277-2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 14/2006 thereby condoning the delay and dismissing the revision application preferred against the order dated 19-9-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Chandrapur issuing process against the applicant in Criminal Complaint No.327/2001. 3. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present application are as under: Respondent no. 1 Yashodhara married Krishna Bhitre on 13-04-1990 at Nagpur. On 6-8-2001 respondent no.1 filed Criminal Complaint No.327/2001 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chandrapur against Klishna Bhitre, the present applicant and two others inter alia alleging that in July, 1996 Krishna Bhitre married the present applicant and the other two accused took part in performance of bigamous marriage of Krishna with the present applicant. The complaint was filed under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued process against all the accused. Against issuance of the process the present applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application along with the application for condonation of delay bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 14/2006. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur by the Judgment and order dated 27th July. 2006 impugned herein dismissed the revision application holding that the order issuing process against the present applicant was correctly passed. 4. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the present application invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge erred in law in holding that prima facie case under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present applicant. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the applicant can not be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 and it is the only husband of respondent no.1 who can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In so far as Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Mr. According to Mr. Sirpurkar, the applicant can not be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 and it is the only husband of respondent no.1 who can be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In so far as Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. Mr. Sirpurkar submitted that the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not made out as against the applicant inasmuch as the applicant is neither the relative of the husband of respondent no. 1 nor cruelty has been established even prima facie on the part of the applicant. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order issuing process passed by the learned Magistrate as well the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra Mr. De, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the applicant can be termed as relative of the husband of respondent no.1 and that the very fact that the husband of respondent no. 1 entered into bigamous marriage with the applicant clearly makes out a case of cruelty under clause (a) of the explanation to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. De fairly conceded that the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. is not made out against the present applicant. Mrs. Wandile, learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is clearly made out against the present applicant inasmuch as she has to be treated as relative of the respondent no.1 for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and further the very fact that the applicant has entered into bigamous marriage establishes cruelty on the part of the present applicant. 7. In view of the rival submissions, the question which arises for consideration is whether prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In so far as Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned counsel for respondent no.1/original complainant has fairly submitted that no case is made out against the present applicant. 8. In so far as Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned counsel for respondent no.1/original complainant has fairly submitted that no case is made out against the present applicant. In my considered opinion, the concession has been correctly made inasmuch as under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code it is either the husband or the wife who marries during the life time of husband or wife who can be punished. Under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code the woman who marries a man whose wife is living cannot be prosecuted. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against the applicant for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of the Revisional Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code is made out against the applicant. To appreciate the rival submissions it would be appropriate to quote Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads thus: "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand)." 10. A plain reading of Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code reveals that it is the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman who subjects such woman to cruelty can be prosecuted and punished for having committed the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A plain reading of Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code reveals that it is the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman who subjects such woman to cruelty can be prosecuted and punished for having committed the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case as per the complainant herself she and her husband belong to Boudha community and as such second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage is void. This being the position it is difficult to accept that a woman who gets married with a man who is married and whose wife is living can be termed as relative of the husband. Therefore, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. I find myself unable to agree with the submissions made by Mr. De and Mrs. Wandile on behalf of the respondents that the applicant has to be treated as the relative of the husband of respondent no.1 for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. A person can be related to another person either by birth or by marriage or by adoption. In the present case although it is claimed by the respondent no. 1 that the applicant entered into bigamous marriage with the husband of respondent no. 1, such a marriage being void does not create any legal relationship. Therefore, the applicant by no stretch of imagination can be termed as relative of the respondent no. 1. The necessary sequittur, therefore, is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process against the present applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the order passed by the Revisional Court upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate are liable to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed. The order dated 19-9-2001 passed by the Magistrate issuing process against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Complaint No.327/2001 as well as the order dated 27th July, 2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur in Misc. The order dated 19-9-2001 passed by the Magistrate issuing process against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Complaint No.327/2001 as well as the order dated 27th July, 2006 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Chandrapur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 14/2006 are quashed and set aside and the proceedings initiated against the applicant by respondent no.1 in private Criminal Complaint No.327/ 200] are quashed and set aside. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case insofar as the other accused are concerned. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Application allowed.