Yelathi Swathi And 2 Others vs The State Of Ap., Through Sho., And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3372 Tel

        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

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

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

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