2IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4338 of 2009, 4174 of 2010 and 4175 of 2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4338 of 2009 Between: B. Ashwardha Narayana and others ... PETITIONERS/A-4 to A-9 a n d State of Andhra Pradesh, through Station House Officer, Midthur Police Station, Kurnool district rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS CRIMINAL PETITION No.4174 of 2010 Between: S. Narahara Murthy and another ... PETITIONERS/A-2 & A-3 a n d State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS CRIMINAL PETITION No.4175 of 2010 Between: S. Bhaskar Murthy ... PETITIONERS/A-1 a n d State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS COMMON ORDER: These three petitions are filed by A-1 to A-9 in three separate sets questioning registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.15 of 2009 in Midthur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 2. Private complaint filed by the second respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandikotkur was referred to investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Police registered the private complaint and issued F.I.R. 3. A-1 is first husband of the complainant, A-2 and A-3 are relations of A-1. A-4 is second husband of the complainant. A-5 to A-9 are relations of A-4. Allegation against A-1 to A-3 is to the effect that A-1 was having skin disease called Chalipiri and that without disclosing the said skin disease, A-1 married the complainant on 01-05-2002. It is alleged that with an intention to cover-up their fault, A-1 and his family members were harassing the complainant. Ultimately, on 13-01-2004 A-1 is stated to have entered into an agreement with the complainant under which A-1 agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant for their separation. 4. Allegation against A-4 to A-9 is that knowing about first marriage of the complainant with A-1, they came forward with proposal for marriage between the complainant and A-4 stating that no formal divorce between the complainant and A-1 was necessary and the agreement dated 13-01-2004 between A-1 and the complainant is sufficient proof of divorce between them. Ultimately, differences arose between A-4 and the complainant; and at the instance of the complainant, the Police filed C.C.No.155 of 2005 before the Banaganapalle Magistrate alleging offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against A-4 and his family members. C.C.No.155 of 2005 ended in acquittal by judgment dated 26-08-2008. In the meanwhile, at the instance of A-4 the Midthur Police filed C.C.No.135 of 2006 before the Nandikotkur Magistrate against the complainant and her family members for offences punishable under Sections 506, 418, 495 and 109, 34 IPC on the ground that she suppressed the first marriage with A-1 and married A-4 without disclosing her first marriage. Admittedly, marriage between the complainant and A-1 was not dissolved by any competent Court. Thereupon A-4 filed a petition for divorce against the complainant on the ground that she suppressed her previous marriage with A-1 and contacted the second marriage with A-4 when her first marriage was subsisting. 5. At this stage it may be further noted that when C.C.No.155 of 2005 was pending in Banaganapalle Magistrate Court for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the complainant filed maintenance case against her first husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. With all these facts in the background, now the complainant makes a complaint against A-1 to A-9 stating that they have cheated her. 6. It is contended for A-4 to A-9 that the alleged cheating was known to the complainant from the beginning and she resorted to this private complaint in the lower Court after she lost her case under Section 498-A IPC and when she is facing a cheating case and also a divorce case filed by A-4. It is further contended that Section 420 IPC has absolutely no application in this case because there is no property much less valuable security involved in between the complainant and A-1 or A-4. Even if allegations in F.I.R. are taken on their face value without reference to the above background, they will not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and at best may attract offence punishable under Section 417 IPC under which an accused person can be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year. 7. As per Section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. there is bar for taking cognizance after lapse of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. When the Court cannot take cognizance of the case after one year of the alleged offence, the question of the Police registering the case and investigating into such case after the period of one year cannot arise at all. 8. Even as per allegations in the complaint, marriage of the complainant with A-1 took place on 01-05-2002 and the marriage of the complainant with A-4 took place on 24-01-2004 and there was separation between A-4 and the complainant in October, 2004. 9. Thus, viewed from any angle, report given by the complainant in this case is not only vitiated in law but also vitiated by abuse of process of law. This Court is of the further opinion that the present F.I.R. is instituted by the complainant, as a counter blast for the cheating case and divorce case filed by A-4 against her. 10. In the result, all the three Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.15 of 2009 of Midthur Police Station. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 31, 2010. PN HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4338 of 2009, 4174 of 2010 and 4175 of 2010 August 31, 2010