Judgment Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the parties. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case no. 529 of 2009, state vs. Yogeshwar Prasad Joshi and another, relating to offences punishable under section 494, 506 I.P.C, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the details of the allegation relating to the second marriage of the petitioner are not mentioned in the first information report, as such the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out. It is further pleaded that the respondent no.2/ complainant Ganga Joshi was in litigation with the petitioner as she earlier filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C and thereafter filed criminal complaint case no. 785 of 2005, relating to offence punishable under section 498A I.P.C and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as such the impugned criminal case which relates to section 494 I.P.C is abuse of the process of law. (4) Perusal of the papers on record shows that marriage between complainant Ganga Joshi (respondent no.2) and the petitioner Yogeshwar Prasad Joshi is an undisputed fact. The dispute raised by the petitioner is that he did not get married to any other woman and particulars of such marriage are not given. However, on perusal of the first information report and the statement of complainant recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C, it is clear that it is alleged by the complainant (Ganga Joshi) that her husband Yogeshwar Prasad Joshi (present petitioner) got married to Deepa Mishra, daughter of Prayag Dutt Mishra, Resident of Pargaliya Mehragaon, District Almora, without her consent . Having gone through said fact, this court does not find any sufficient reason to quash the criminal proceedings challenged before this court. As to the date of second marriage, it is sufficient to mention here that since the second marriage is not said to have been solemnized with fan and fare, it could not be said that the first wife (complainant) had the knowledge of said date. As to the date of second marriage, it is sufficient to mention here that since the second marriage is not said to have been solemnized with fan and fare, it could not be said that the first wife (complainant) had the knowledge of said date. It is open for the petitioner to show before the trial court, after prosecution evidence is over that he did not get married to any other woman. (5) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition is liable to be dismissed. The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. (Urgency application no. 1366 of 2010 also stands disposed of).