Following the Apex Court judgment here, AP High Court delivered this judgment.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17 A Division Bench of this Court, in Mavuri Rani Veerabhadramma @ Kandarpa Prameela @ Mavuri Prameela v State of A.P.[10] after analysing the entire case-law on the point, in para 23, held as under:
23. The reference is answered with the following conclusions:
1. If a complaint is filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. before a Magistrate, he may take cognizance of the offence or postpone the issue of process either by making enquiry into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by the Police Officer or other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed. If the complaint is referred to the police for investigation and if the police files either the chargesheet showing that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused or that there is no case to take cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the result of the investigation and it amounts to sufficient compliance of Section 198 of Cr.P.C.
2. The police may also receive a complaint for the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. and register a crime. As per the amendment of the schedule, Section 494 of I.P.C. is made cognizable and the police are empowered to investigate the case. But the Magistrate is precluded from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 198 of Cr.P.C. on the charge-sheet filed by the police, when a complaint is not presented before the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence.
3. If a complaint for the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. is lodged along with other cognizable offences before the police and if the police files a charge-sheet, the Court can take cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. also along with other cognizable offences by virtue of Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C.
18 As per the principle enunciated in this case, the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence under Section 494 IPC basing on the police report, when the crime is consisting of a cognizable and non-cognizable offences.

From Paras 25 and 26,

25 As per the principle enunciated therein, the Court can take cognizance of offence under Sections 494 and 495 I.P.C basing on the police report even without corresponding amendment to Sections 320 and 198 Cr.P.C.

26 As per the principle enunciated in Krishna Kumar Case above, the ratio decidendi of the previous case alone has the force of law and became a binding precedent. In A. Subhash Babu case, the apex Court interpreted the scope of Section 198 Cr.P.C. with reference to the A.P. State amendment to Section 494 IPC. The point urged and decided by the Hon’ble apex Court is identical to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court is binding on all the courts subordinate to it in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The judicial discipline mandates that the Courts subordinate to the Hon’ble apex Court should invariably follow the principle laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, the ratio laid down in Subhash Babu case is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

Citations: [2015 ALD CRL AP 1 115], [2014 SCC ONLINE HYD 753], [2015 ALT CRL AP 1 242]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168383354/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8d9e4b014971114384a

Index to Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC is here.