Judgment :- 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners/A1 to A5 seek to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.185 of 2014 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. 2. A1 is the husband of defacto complainant. A2 and A3 are parents, A4 is the sister and A5 is the brother-in-law of A1. 3. On the report given by defacto complainant the police of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad registered Cr.No.185 of 2014 against the accused for the offences under Section 494 and 418 r/w 34 IPC. The allegations are that when the report lodged by the complainant in Cr.No.9 of 2013 for the offence under Section 498A IPC was pending against the accused, A1 with the connivance of A2 to A5 had a second marriage at Srisailam. 4. Denying the charges in the FIR, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the complainant had suppressed the material facts and gave a false report to implicate the accused. He would submit that in fact A1 obtained divorce against the defacto complainant in FCOP No.1135 of 2010 on 06.11.2010 from Family Court, Hyderabad and lawfully married second time and accused 2 to 5 have nothing to do with the said marriage and the defacto complainant has full knowledge about passing of divorce decree and the said decree is still in force as the complainant has not filed any appeal and obtained stay of said decree and in view of these facts, the present complaint for the offence under Section 494 IPC is not maintainable and its continuation will amount to abuse of process of law. On this aspect he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Krishna Gopal Divedi vs. Prabha Divedi ( AIR 2002 SC 389 ). 6. In oppugnation, learned counsel for 2nd respondent/defacto complainant argued that the divorce decree obtained by A1 was an ex-parte decree and he obtained the same by playing fraud on defacto complainant and therefore, he cannot contact second marriage on the strength of such an ex-parte decree and therefore, the proceedings against him and his family members who conspired with him in his second marriage, are maintainable. 7. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is: “Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?” 8 a) POINT: The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 494 IPC. 7. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is: “Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?” 8 a) POINT: The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 494 IPC. Section 494 reads thus: “Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Exception-- This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.” b) To attract the offence under Section 494 IPC—the accused must have contacted the first marriage; the first marriage must be subsisting and his spouse must be living and the accused must have married again during the subsistence of first marriage. In such a scenario, the second marriage becomes void. Thus, the fact of second marriage being void is the sin quo non for the applicability of Section 494 IPC. c) Now, coming to the case on hand, the admitted fact is that A1 contacted second marriage. So, the point is whether the second marriage became void. As per the above ingredients of the offence under Section 494 second marriage becomes void when the first marriage is in subsistence and the first wife is in existence. Since the defacto complainant being first wife alive, the crucial aspect to be considered is whether by the date of second marriage the first marriage is in subsistence or not. d) A1 produced copy of the order dated 06.11.2010 purported to be passed by Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in FCOP No.1135 of 2010. Since the defacto complainant being first wife alive, the crucial aspect to be considered is whether by the date of second marriage the first marriage is in subsistence or not. d) A1 produced copy of the order dated 06.11.2010 purported to be passed by Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in FCOP No.1135 of 2010. The said order shows that the Court granted an ex-parte decree of divorce in favour of A1 against the defacto complainant and dissolved the marriage between both of them. No doubt it is an ex-parte decree but under law, there is no distinction between an ex-parte decree and a contested decree. Defacto complainant has not produced any material before this Court showing that either the said ex-parte decree was set aside by a subsequent order by the same Court or by an appellate Court. Therefore, it shall be presumed that the decree passed in the above FCOP No.1135 of 2010 is in force. As per the complaint allegations, A1 contacted second marriage about four months prior to lodging report with the police. The report was lodged on 13.06.2014. Therefore, the second marriage contacted by A1 must be held to be subsequent to his obtaining ex-parte decree of divorce. When the ingredients of Section 494 IPC are applied to the above set of facts, it is clear that the first marriage was not in subsistence by the date of second marriage and so, second marriage cannot be termed as void marriage in the eye of law. It is already observed supra that the second marriage being void is the sin quo non for the applicability of Section 494 IPC which is not the case here. Therefore, the offence under Section 494 IPC has no application as rightly contended by the petitioners. 9. In similar circumstances, Honourable Apex Court quashed the proceedings against the accused for the offence under Section 494 IPC. It was observed thus: “3. The first wife filed a complaint against the appellant on 28.3.1995 alleging that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. On receiving the process issued by the criminal court the appellant moved the High Court of Allahabad for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was observed thus: “3. The first wife filed a complaint against the appellant on 28.3.1995 alleging that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. On receiving the process issued by the criminal court the appellant moved the High Court of Allahabad for quashing the criminal proceedings. The main plank adopted by the appellant is that on the date when he conducted the second marriage the first marriage was not subsisting in view of the ex parte decree which continued in force on the said date. (Emphasis supplied) 4. Learned counsel for the respondent (first wife) did not dispute the fact that she moved for setting aside the ex parte decree and succeeded in it when an order was passed on 31.3.1994. As per that order the ex parte decree of divorce dated 6.7.1990 was set aside. If that be so, appellant cannot possibly be convicted for the offence under Section 494 of IPC on premise that he had undergone a ceremony of marriage with another lady on 25.5.1993. x x x x 6. As it is, we feel that the criminal proceeding now pending against the appellant for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is only an exercise of futility. We do not want the criminal court to waste its time for that purpose.” The above decision clearly applies to the facts of the present case. Hence, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. 10) Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.185 of 2014 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad are hereby quashed against petitioners/A1 to A5 As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.