THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4779 of 2014
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners - A2, A5 and A6 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings relating to CC No.394 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam stating that she was the wife of A1 and their marriage took place on 18.05.1994 as per Hindu customs prevailing in their community. After their marriage, they lead marital life at Ordinance Factory quarters, Eddumailaram, Medak District. A1 developed illegal intimacy with petitioner No.1 - A2 and they lived together at the quarter of father of A2. When the 2nd respondent questioned the intimacy of A1 and A2, A1 beat her, harassed her and threw her out of the house in the month of November, 2007. Due to unbearable harassment of her husband and A2, the 2nd respondent came to her parents' house at Chinna Thanda, Khammam Rural Mandal, she reliably learnt that A1 and A2 also got children. A1 contracted the second marriage with A2 on 19.06.2011 at Shivalayam, Dhamsalapuram, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, while her marriage with A1 was subsisting. A3 to A6 actively participated and abetted the offence. The said complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and basing on the same, a Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.4779 of 2014 case in Crime No.36 of 2013 under Section 494 read with 109 IPC was registered by the police, Khanapuram Haveli and after completing investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offences under Section 494, 506 read with 109 IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd respondent due to the misunderstandings between herself and A1 started bad propaganda that A1 was having illegal intimacy with petitioner No.1. In fact, there was no such intimacy in between the petitioner No.1 and A1. Only to harass A1, the 2nd respondent dragged the petitioner No.1 - A2 and her parents into the false case. The 2nd respondent also lodged a complaint with Indrakaran Police, Medak, which was registered as Crime No.2 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The petitioner No.1 was arrayed as A2 in the said case and the said case ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 29.01.2013 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy. The learned Magistrate held that there was no documentary proof to show that A1 contracted second marriage with the petitioner No.1 and was blessed with children through his second marriage. The 2nd respondent knowing well that the criminal case instituted by her would end in acquittal, with malafide intention, filed this private complaint suppressing the fact of her filing the earlier criminal case. When the said case ended in acquittal, continuation of Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.4779 of 2014 the present case which was also on the same set of facts, was an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
6. Perused the record. The record would disclose that on the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the case was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 stating that on 19.06.2011, A1 married A2 with active abetment of A3 to A6 at Shivalayam, Dhamsalapuram, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, without the consent or knowledge of 2nd respondent. On verification of the facts, they found that A1 married A2 and both were leading their marital life at Ordinance factory, Medak and were blessed with two children.
7. CC No.117 of 2011 was tried against A1 alone for the offences under Section 498-A and 494 IPC and it ended in acquittal on 29.01.2013. The observations of the said Court in the said CC were confined to the facts of that case only. They cannot be considered as relevant and binding on this case as the witnesses examined and the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer, prima facie, would disclose that there were specific allegations made against the petitioners. As the truth or otherwise of the allegations found in the charge sheet can only be decided during the course of trial and this Court is not supposed to make a roving enquiry into the allegations in Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.4779 of 2014 the charge sheet in this petition, I see no ground to quash the charge sheet in this case against the petitioners.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 11, 2021 KTL