JUDGMENT Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioners are the accused in R.C.C. No. 177 of 2011 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Georai. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with section 109 of IPC and section 34 of IPC. It arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein, who is the wife of the petitioner no.1 herein. 3. The respondent no.2 shall hereinafter be referred to as "the complainant", for the sake of brevity and convenience. 4. The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner no.1, the petitioner no. 1 married one Jaishree @ Guddi Bandurao Deokar on 06.05.2011. The other accused, who are said to be the relatives of the petitioner no. 1, are alleged to have aided and abetted the commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner no.1. 5. After examining the complainant on oath and after holding an inquiry by examining two more witnesses, the learned Magistrate issued process against all the persons, named as the accused in the complaint, requiring them to appear and answer to the charge of the said offences. The accused persons including the petitioners moved the Court of Sessions in revision, by challenging the impugned order, and the learned Sessions Judge quashed the process issued by the Magistrate against three accused i.e. original accused nos. 2, 5 and 6, who were the second wife Jaishree and her father and mother respectively. As regards the other accused i.e. the petitioners, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the order issuing process against them is legal and proper and needed no interference. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the Sessions Judge to quash the proceeding against the present petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 6. I have gone through the complaint. It categorically asserts that the accused no.1 married original accused no.2 Jaishree on 06.05.2011, when the marriage between the complainant and the accused no. 1 was subsisting. The complainant also categorically averred that all the other accused were aware about the relationship between the complainant and the accused no. 1, and that, still they arranged second marriage of the accused no. 1. 1 was subsisting. The complainant also categorically averred that all the other accused were aware about the relationship between the complainant and the accused no. 1, and that, still they arranged second marriage of the accused no. 1. It is also alleged in the complaint that all the other accused assisted the accused no. 1 in performing such illegal marriage with the original accused no.2 Jaishree. The complainant also states that the complainant's father received information about the intention of the accused no. 1 to perform the second marriage, and therefore, immediately went to the place where the marriage was to be performed, along with some persons. The Magistrate had examined the father of the complainant and one witness, who had allegedly accompanied with the father of the complainant to the place of marriage before deciding to issue process against the accused persons. From the record and proceedings, that have been called, I have examined the statements of the complainant's father and of the other witnesses, as recorded by the Magistrate. 7. There is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, which are in the nature of disputing the facts stated in the complaint. The truth or falsity of the averments made in the complaint, which are supported by the complainant's examination on oath and by the examination of two more witnesses, can be ascertained only on the basis of the evidence as may be adduced during the trial. 8. The order passed by the Sessions Judge is proper and legal. No interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is called for. 9. The Petition is dismissed. 10. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.