Telangana High Court
Teppa Srinu vs The State Of Telangana on 19 September, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8205 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused
Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1184 of
2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, registered for the
offences under Sections 494, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short "IPC").
2. Heard the submissions of Ms. Nallacheru Aishwarya, learned
counsel for the petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.
3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that there are
bald and vague allegations against the petitioners herein and that
mere allegation alone is not sufficient to make out an offence under
Section 494 of the IPC. She further submitted that all the accused
herein cannot abet the second marriage of the petitioner No.1 and
thus, there is no truth in the said allegations. She therefore, prayed
to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that
initially the complaint was filed against accused Nos.1 to 16 and
during the course of investigation, the Police could find that there is
no case against accused No.8 to 16 and therefore, their names
were deleted, but involvement of accused Nos.1 to 7 is made out
during the course of investigation that they have knowledge about
the first marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the de-facto
complainant. Hence, Section 109 of the IPC gets attracted against
these petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon S.
Nagalingam Vs. Sivagami 1, wherein the Court has relied upon in
Kanwal Ram Vs. H.P Admn 2, in which case the Supreme Court
has held that, in a bigamy case, the second marriage is to be
proved and the essential ceremony required for a valid marriage
should have been performed. It was held that mere admission on
the part of the accused may not be sufficient. In the said case the
second marriage of the accused was contended to be not a valid
marriage by taking a plea that an important ceremony of 'saptapadi'
(2001) 7 SCC 487
AIR 1966 SC 614
was not performed. It was observed by the Supreme Court that
'saptapadi' is held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage
only in case where it was admitted by the parties that as per the
form of marriage applicable to them, that was an essential
ceremony. In the instant case, the appellant had no such case that
saptapadi was an essential ceremony for a valid marriage as per
the personal law and therefore, it was proved that the appellant had
committed the offence of Bigamy as it was performed during the
subsistance of earlier marriage. Hence, the said case law does not
aid the case of the petitioner herein.
7. The petitioner counsel has further relied upon S. Nitheen
and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another, in the said case, the
presence of the petitioners during the second marriage was not
established and it was further observed that those petitioners who
were witnesses to the second marriage had no knowledge about
the first marriage. No evidence was produced to show that the
witnesses who have attended the second marriage had knowledge
about the first marriage. Thus, in the said facts and circumstances
of the case, the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed,
but the facts differ with the present case.
8. In the present case, the petitioners are aware about the first
marriage, it is also disclosed from the recitals of the charge sheet
that the temple authorities themselves have refused to perform the
second marriage when the petitioners herein have approached it on
learning that it is a second marriage, that means petitioners had
knowledge about the first marriage. Therefore, the said case law is
also not applicable to the case on hand.
9. The petitioner counsel further relied upon Bhanwar Lal Jaat
Vs. State of Rajashtan and Another 3, wherein the Rajasthan High
Court has held that mere fact of a man and a woman living together
as husband and wife would not be considered as an offence under
Section 494 IPC, if they have not performed a valid marriage in
accordance with law. In the present case, it is alleged that the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married during the subsistence of first
marriage of petitioner No.1 with the de-facto complainant. By
placing reliance on this judgment, the contention of the petitioner
counsel is that, there is absolutely no record to show any
performance of second marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2
and there are no details as to show whether accused Nos.3 to 7
have witnessed the marriage. Though the petitioner counsel
2024(2) RLW 1677
contends that there is no evidence to show the performance of
second marriage, the evidentiary part falls for consideration during
the course of trial.
10. The recitals of the charge sheet prima-facie point out that the
petitioners herein had knowledge about the first marriage of the
petitioner No.1 with the de-facto complainant. However, they
proceeded to perform the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the
petitioner No.2 in a Temple and that the Temple authorities have
refused to perform the marriage as they gained knowledge that it is
going to be a second marriage, but still the petitioners herein have
got the marriage performed between the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
The petitioners No.3 to 7 are none other than the parents and
relatives of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The charge sheet reveals the
list of witnesses which include the village elders and also
neighbouring witnesses. The veracity in the statements of these
witnesses and also truth in the allegations fall for adjudication
during the course of trial, hence, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the same .
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing
with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court, unless
their presence is specifically required by the trial Court during the
course of trial, provided that they shall be represented by their
counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 19.09.2025
ds
