ORDER : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. Accused-petitioners have laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to assail impugned order dated 13.01.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera (for short, 'learned revisional Court') as well as order dated 27.06.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nimbahera (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The petitioners have also craved for quashing entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 478/2012 pending before learned trial Court. 2. Bare necessary facts are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners for offence under Sections 494, 114, 109 and 120-B before learned trial Court. Learned trial Court, after recording statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., made necessary inquiry in the matter and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 494 and Section 109 IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order petitioners preferred revision petition before the learned revisional Court and learned revisional Court by its order dated 13.01.2015 upheld the order of cognizance passed by learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioner No.1 was prosecuted by the complainant wherein his parents were also arrayed as accused-persons for offence under Section 498-A and 494 IPC and on completion of trial learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh by its verdict, on 06.02.2012 acquitted the petitioner and other accused-persons for the aforesaid offence. He, therefore, submits that second prosecution of the first petitioner for the same offence is a glaring example of abuse of process of the Court and therefore impugned order and the entire proceedings are liable to be annulled. Learned counsel further submits that the verdict of Court dated 06.02.2012 has attained finality and therefore second prosecution of the petitioner for the same offence is per se oppressive and prejudicial to his interest but this important aspect has been completely eschewed by both the Courts below. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that if the impugned orders are allowed to sustain and the proceedings are continued in the matter, the same would result in miscarriage of justice. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, in general, has opposed the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Mr. Saruapriya, submits that in the earlier criminal case lodged on behalf of complainant, petitioner No.2 was not a party and therefore second prosecution of the petitioner is not barred by law. 6. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, in general, has opposed the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Mr. Saruapriya, submits that in the earlier criminal case lodged on behalf of complainant, petitioner No.2 was not a party and therefore second prosecution of the petitioner is not barred by law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. At the outset, it may be observed that the main offence which is sought to be attributed to the petitioners is offence under Section 494 IPC i.e. bigamy and if prosecution for the said offence is not sustainable against first petitioner, obviously the same cannot be sustained against petitioner No.2, who is alleged to be the second wife of petitioner No.1. Moreover, from a bare perusal of the criminal complaint submitted by respondent-complainant and her statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is clearly discernible that there is no whisper that petitioner No.2 has entered into matrimony with petitioner No.1 while knowing this fact that he was already married. Therefore, at the most, charge against her under Section 109 IPC can be framed. As the main offence which is sought to be attributed to the petitioner No.1 is per se not tenable in view of categorical finding by the Court earlier in its verdict dated 06.02.2012, which has attained finality, the entire case itself collapses and allowing proceedings to continue in the matter would result in grave injustice to both the petitioners. The legal position is no more res integra that for proving second marriage factum of marriage and the requisite ceremonies are required to be proved and that aspect has been threadbare examined by the Court in its earlier verdict dated 06.02.2012 and while recording definite finding that charge of bigamy has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Reliance in this behalf can be profitably made to a decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh [ 1971 (1) SCC 864 ] wherein the Court has held that the prosecution has to prove that the alleged second marriage had been duly performed in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the form of marriage gone through by the parties and that the said marriage must be a valid one according to the law applicable to the parties. 8. 8. While it is true, the Court has given benefit of doubt to the first petitioner and the other accused persons but the fact remains that verdict of acquittal is passed, and therefore, in my considered opinion, it would not be worthwhile to continue proceedings in Criminal Case No. 478/2012 pending before the learned trial Court. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case allowing proceedings to continue in the aforesaid criminal case will apparently result in abuse of the process of the Court and as such quashment of proceedings is essential for securing ends of justice. Moreover, case in hand also warrants exercise of inherent powers ex debitio justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. 9. In view of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed, both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 478/2012 pending before learned trial Court are annulled.