ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by A1 to A7, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings, in C.C.No.173 of 2018 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa District. 2. 2nd respondent in the above criminal petition, lodged complaint before Police, Rayachoty Police Station, alleging that A1 contacted second marriage with A4, without obtaining valid divorce as per law and Islamic Injunctions and marriage certificate was issued by Government, SAR QAZI of Rayachoty. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered Cr.No.602 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). After investigation, charge sheet was filed and it was numbered as C.C.No173 of 2018. 3. Heard Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.V. Sainadh, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. There is no representation for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners belong to Muslim community and marriage took place as per customs in vogue in Muslim religion, offence under Section 494 of IPC will not attract against them. As per Muslim personal law, husband contacting second marriage is not an offence under Section 494 of IPC. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and hence, he prays to allow the petition. The learned counsel placed reliance on un reported judgement in Crl.P.No.11625 of 2018. 5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor has placed before this Court, the decision reported in Jafar Abbas Rasoolmohammad Merchant v. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC Online Guj 5552, wherein Single Judge of Gujarat High Court elaborately discussed application of Section 494 of IPC qua Muslim husband and held that Muslim personnel, cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. 6. In the complaint lodged before C.I. of Rayachoty Police Station, it was averred that 2nd respondent/complainant is legally wedded wife of A1 and their marriage was solemnized on 09.09.2004 at Groundnut Mills of Konduru Azmathulla of Masapeta of Rayachoty town, Kadapa District, as per Muslim rites and customs prevailing in Dudekula community. It was further averred that 2nd respondent/complainant studied B.Sc. Maths and B.Ed. course by the date of their marriage. It was further averred that 2nd respondent/complainant studied B.Sc. Maths and B.Ed. course by the date of their marriage. After marriage, the accused started harassing her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and ill-treated her. It was further averred in the complaint that accused insisted 2nd respondent/complainant to give consent in writing for second marriage, for which she did not accept. 2nd respondent /complainant also lodged another complaint and the same was registered as crime No.261 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and later it was numbered as C.C.No.502 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty. She also filed DVC No.2 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mandanapalle besides filing M.C.No.11 of 2009 and another M.C.No.18 of 2010 was filed on behalf of minor child. According to her, on 16.07.2017, she came to know about solemnization of second marriage of A1 with A4 on 20.05.2017, with the help of other accused. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered the crime as stated supra and filed charge sheet. 7. Admittedly A1 to A7 and respondent No.2 belong to Muslim community. 2nd respondent /complainant specifically averred in the complaint that she belongs to Muslim community and the marriage took place as per Muslim customs. 8. It is to be considered whether A1 to A7 committed offence under Sec 494 IPC and continuing of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law? 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking to quash the proceedings is that under Muslim personal law second marriage is not void and personal law permits to marry upto four marriages. The person, who marries four wives is to treat all the wives equally. 10. It is apt to extract Section 494 IPC, which reads thus: “Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.— 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. 11. In Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2000 (6) SCC 224 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “37. The position under the Mahommedan Law would be different as in spite of the first marriage, a second marriage can be contracted by the husband, subject to such religious restrictions as have been spelled out by Brother Sethi, J. in his separate judgment, with which I concur on this point also. This is the vital difference between Mahommedan Law and other personal laws. Prosecution under Section 494 in respect of a second marriage under Mohammedan Law can be avoided only if the first marriage was also under the Mahommedan Law and not if the first marriage was under any other personal law where there was a prohibition on contracting a second marriage in the life-time of the spouse.” 12. In Jafar Abbas Rasoolmohammad Merchant v. State of Gujarat the Gujarat High Court held at para 71, which is extracted hereunder: “71. In view of the above, so far as the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC is concerned, I am left with no other option but to accept the submission of Mr. Joshi that his client cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. To this extent, the petition will have to be allowed, and, is accordingly, allowed.” 13. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.11625 of 2018, while dealing with applicability of Section 494 of IPC on Muslim Community, by placing reliance on Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. To this extent, the petition will have to be allowed, and, is accordingly, allowed.” 13. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition No.11625 of 2018, while dealing with applicability of Section 494 of IPC on Muslim Community, by placing reliance on Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., held that Muslim second marriage is not void ab initio that the husband to conduct as per the personal law that is not prone to prosecution under Section 494 of IPC. 14. In view of the pronouncements referred supra, since the petitioners/A1 to A7 and 2nd respondent/complaint belong to Muslim community, continuing prosecution against them for the offence under Sec 494 IPC is abuse of process. 15. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.173 of 2018 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa District against A1 to A7 are quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.