Telangana High Court

Saini Narsing Rao vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., Anr on 7 January, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.7110 of 2013
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner - A1 under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.134 of 2010 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, taken on file for the

offences under Section 498-A and 494 IPC against him.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that the 2nd respondent

lodged a complaint against him on 27.01.2008 alleging that her

marriage was performed with the petitioner in the year 1991 and out

of the wedlock three children were born to them and subsequently, the

petitioner started harassing her to get additional dowry from her

parents. He performed second marriage with one Annamaneni

Vanisree with the support of the children of said Vanisree and started

harassing the 2nd respondent to transfer plot in the name of said

Vanisree. Due to the harassment, the 2nd respondent went to her

parents' house and started living there. Basing on the said complaint,

the Police of Women Police Station, Adilabad registered a case vide

Crime No.2 of 2008 under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC and filed

charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 498-A

and 494 IPC and against A3 to A5 for the offence under Section 494

IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent -

complainant.

Dr.GRR,J

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier

to the present case, the husband of A2 by name Annamaneni

Muralidhar Rao filed a complaint against the petitioner and A2 and

after investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offences under

Sections 494 and 506 IPC, the same was numbered as CC No.26 of

2008 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar and after trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted both of

them vide judgment dated 02.03.2009. When CC No.26 of 2008 was

already ended in acquittal on 02.03.2009 for the offence under Section

494 IPC by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Karimnagar and that order became final and the said acquittal

remained in force, the second prosecution of the petitioner for the very

same offence once again was not maintainable under Section 300

Cr.P.C., hence, CC No.134 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad was liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

earlier the petitioner filed a quash petition vide Crl.P. No.5123 of

2011 and the same was dismissed on 28.06.2011 with an observation

that the offence relating to Section 498-A IPC was concerned, there

were allegations in the charge sheet which were disputed questions of

fact and should not be entertained and in respect of the offence under

Section 494 IPC, the Court directed the petitioner to apply for

discharge bringing it to the notice of the trial Court about the

acquittal in CC No.26 of 2008 and the trial Court was directed to take

decision and to pass appropriate orders on that application and that the Dr.GRR,J

petitioner would have his remedies even against that order if it was

ordered against him. As per the said order, the petitioner filed a

discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the concerned

Court on 31.08.2012, but the Court returned the petition stating that

the petition was not maintainable during the pendency of stay

proceedings by this Court. A2 had earlier filed a quash petition before

the High Court vide Crl.P.No.9177 of 2011 to quash the proceedings

against her in CC No.134 of 2010 and this Court granted interim stay

vide Crl.M.P. No.10000 of 2011 in Crl.P. No.9177 of 2011 by its

order dated 28.09.2011. He contended that subjecting the petitioner

for second prosecution for the offence under Section 494 of IPC was

not maintainable when he was already acquitted once for the very

same set of allegations and the said acquittal was still in force and

prayed to quash the proceedings against him in CC No.134 of 2010.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there were

specific allegations against the petitioner for the offence under Section

498-A IPC and as such CC No.134 of 2010 could not be quashed. CC

No.26 of 2008 was tried basing on the report given by the husband of

Vanisree (A2 in CC No.134 of 2010) and it was acquitted on the

ground that the marriage between the complainant and Vanisree was

not subsisting by the date of his alleged report under Section 494 IPC

but the present complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent, the 1st

wife of the petitioner -A1 and their marriage was subsisting by the

date of the alleged marriage of the petitioner with A2 on 06.04.2007.

As such, prior and later prosecutions were not on the same facts and Dr.GRR,J

the later prosecution for the offence under Section 494 IPC was not

barred under Section 300 Cr.P.C., and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Perused the record. The record would disclose that CC

No.134 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Adilabad was based on the police report lodged by the 2nd respondent

on 27.01.2008 about the allegations of dowry harassment for the

offence under Section 498-A and for bigamy under Section 494 IPC.

The petitioner also filed a quash petition before this Court vide

Criminal Petition No.5123 of 2011 to quash the proceedings in CC

No.193 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum

Special Court for Protection of Civil Rights, Adilabad. The present

CC No.134 of 2010 and CC No.193 of 2008 appear to be arising out

of the same case in Crime No.2 of 2008, registered by the Women

Police Station, Adilabad under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, but, were

given different numbers might be due to transfer from the Court of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum Special Court for Protection of

Civil Rights, Adilabad to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Adilabad. In Criminal Petition No.5123 of 2011, which was

dismissed at the stage of admission, on 28.06.2011, it was observed

that:

"So far as the offence under Section 498-A IPC, is concerned there are allegations in the charge sheet which disclosed the said offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions relating to the innocence of the petitioner. But, they fall within the purview of the disputed questions of fact and cannot be entertained in this petition.

Dr.GRR,J

Learned counsel for the petitioner then pointed that insofar as the offence under Section 494 IPC i.e. bigamy is concerned, the de facto complainant had already filed a complaint case i.e. C.C.No.26 of 2008 and that ended in acquittal on 02.03.2009 in the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar and that order has become final and therefore this second prosecution for the offence punishable under section 494 of IPC is not maintainable and has to be quashed on the principle of Autrefois Acquit. The Petitioner's counsel has also filed a copy of the judgment in the said C.C.No.26 of 2008.

In the face of the said judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2008 the Petitioner cannot prima facie be subjected to a second prosecution for the same offence. It, may, however be noted that the present case has to go on with regard to section 498-A of IPC.

In these circumstances, the Petitioner is directed to apply for a discharge or other relief bringing it to the notice of the trial court about the acquittal in C.C.No.26 of 2008 filed for the offence punishable under section 494 of IPC and the trial court may take a decision and pass appropriate orders on that application and thereupon the Petitioner shall have his remedies even against that order if it goes against him"

8. Thus, this Court upon examining the allegations in the charge

sheet, observed that there are prima facie allegations for the offence

under Section 498-A IPC and it cannot be dismissed. As per the

observations of this Court in Crl.P. No.5123 of 2011, the petitioner

filed a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C., but he stated that

the same was returned due to the interim stay granted by this Court on

28.09.2011 in Crl.P.M.P.No.10000 of 2011 in Crl. No.9177 of 2011

filed by A2 for quashing the proceedings in CC No.134 of 2010. As

the said discharge petition was not decided on merits, the petitioner is Dr.GRR,J

at liberty to pursue the said remedy by filing another petition, if

necessary, as per the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.5133 of 2011

dated 28.06.2011. As an effective alternative remedy is available to