1. Subject matter of the petition in hand is the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff) Jammu, whereby the cognizance has been drawn and process issued against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 494, 109 of RPC read with the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Baramulla, whereby revision petition filed by petitioners was dismissed. 2. It appears that a complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff) Jammu. Thereafter, the complaint was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge) Special Mobile Magistrate Passenger Tax & Shop Act, JMIC, Jammu. During the pendency of the complaint a motion was laid before this court and complaint was withdrawn from the said court and transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge), Baramulla. The file was pending on the dockets of the said court and petitioners instead of causing appearance before the transferee court filed a revision petition before the court of Sessions Judge, Baramulla, against the order of Judicial Magistrate (2nd Additional Munsiff), Jammu, drawing cognizance and issuing process which was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2011. Thereafter, filed the petition in hand on the ground that entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and abuse of process of law. 3. It is stated that complainant has to prove that first marriage and the second marriage was performed after performing the pre-requisites of the religion to which they belong. The complainant has not mentioned in the complaint and the witnesses have not deposed whether first marriage was legal one and was performed in accordance with the religion to which they belong. The petitioners have not agitated this ground right from drawing of cognizance and issuing process till filing of the petition in hand despite of the fact that they invoked the jurisdiction of this court by the medium of criminal transfer application in the year 2007. The minutes of the file due disclose that petitioners/accused have not caused appearance before the trial court at Jammu or at Baramulla. Thus abused the process of law. 4. Paras 2 to 4 of the complaint due disclose that petitioners/accused are involved in commission of offences and preliminary statements also disclose commission of offences. The minutes of the file due disclose that petitioners/accused have not caused appearance before the trial court at Jammu or at Baramulla. Thus abused the process of law. 4. Paras 2 to 4 of the complaint due disclose that petitioners/accused are involved in commission of offences and preliminary statements also disclose commission of offences. It is beaten law of the land that at the time of drawing cognizance and issuing process court has to take into consideration contents contained in the complaint and the preliminary statements recorded. The defence, if any available, cannot be taken into consideration at that stage. 5. Apex Court has held that power under Section 561-A of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised cautiously, carefully, sparingly and in rare of rarest cases. The High Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as K.L.E Society & Ors. v. Siddalingesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW1993; A.P v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah reported as 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1998. 6. In the given circumstances, this petition is dismissed along with connected CrMPs. Petitioners to appear before the trial court on 1st of October, 2012 and if they fail to appear, trial court to take all necessary steps for securing their presence. 7. Send down the record along with a copy of this order.