IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH [8TH] DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.4814 of 2007 Between: Yarlagadda Annapurna & others … Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.4814 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.265 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama against the petitioners-A.2 to A.7. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the first respondent-State and the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant-2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners-A.2 to A.7 are facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 498-A and 495 IPC in CC No.265 of 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, a case in Cr.No.9 of 2007 was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against A.1 and the petitioners- A.2 to A.7 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 495 IPC. A.1 is the husband of the de-facto complainant, A.2 and A.3 are the parents of A.1 and A.4 to A.7 are stated to be closely related to A.1. According to the complainant, A.1 married one Vasireddi Kanakadurga of Virulapadu village in the year 2002 and subjected her to harassment and on a complaint given by her, police registered a case in Cr.No.72 of 2005 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the investigation was pending. She further alleges that subsequently, A.1, on the instigation of other accused married the complainant by suppressing the factum of earlier marriage on 17.11.2005 in a temple at Hyderabad. She further alleges that at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.70,000/- to A.1 besides other valuables and subsequently, accused started harassing physically and mentally, demanding more dowry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that even according to the complainant, she is only the second wife and therefore, the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not attracted. 5. The specific case of the complainant is that she was married to A.1 and that she was subjected to harassment over the demand for additional dowry. She also alleges that A.1 married her deceitfully by suppressing the factum of earlier marriage with one Kanakadurga. The question as to whether or not the complainant was the second wife and that her marriage was performed by suppressing the factum of earlier marriage and subjected to physical and mental harassment, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court after evidence is adduced during the course of trial. At this stage, in view of the specific allegations contained in the FIR and also charge sheet against all the petitioners, it is neither just nor expedient to invoke the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.2 to A.7 in CC No.265 of 2007. 6. In the circumstances, there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.2 to A.7 in CC No.265 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Nandigama. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.07.2010 bss