THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.8037 of 2008 Date : 17-3-2010 Between : Mummadi Savithramma and another .. Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.8037 of 2008 ORDER: 1. Heard the Counsel. 2. The Counsel or petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the Criminal Petition and would maintain that in the light of the specific grounds raised in the Criminal Petition, the proceedings in C.C.No.282/2007 to be quashed. 3. On the contrary Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent would maintain that these are all factual issues and this cannot be gone into at this stage. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent would maintain that this is not a fit case to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is stated that it is the case of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is that she fell in love with the son of the 1st petitioner who is A-1 in C.C.No.282/2008 and she got married on 12-6-2005 at Sai Baba Temple, Madhavaram. It is also her case that thereafter, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner did not allow the 2nd respondent and A-1 as the 2nd respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Further it is stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 performed second marriage to A-1 at Sudharshan Kalyanamantapam, Rajampeta with one Priyadarshini who belongs to Madras when she was in town for three days. Further it is stated that basing on the same the 1st respondent registered a crime in F.I.R.No.20/2006 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed charge sheet on 16-7-2006 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa, taking into consideration the charge sheet filed by the 1st respondent, took cognizance for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C. and numbered the same as C.C.No.282/2007. 6. It is also further stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 are innocent and had never committed any offences, much less the offences alleged in the complaint as well as the charge sheet. The contents of the complaint and the contents in the charge sheet are quite contradictory and the same would establish that the petitioners 1 and 2 are implicated with an ulterior motive for the reasons best known to the 2nd respondent. Even assuming without admitting that the 2nd respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that she married intercaste marriage with A-1 and that the petitioners refused them to enter into their house, the same would not make out any case attracting the ingredients of the provisions under which the present case is taken cognizance. Further, when the marriage itself is doubtful, the question of attracting the ingredients of Section 498-A and 494 I.P.C. does not arise. The petitioners 1 and 2 are in no way concerned with the alleged offences and they had been implicated due to the illicit intimacy in between A-1 and the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and to achieve the aspirations of the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant the petitioners had been implicated as accused for the alleged offences by abusing the process of the court and if the petitioners are prosecuted for the alleged offences, the petitioners will be put to grave and irreparable loss. 7. Several grounds also had been specified. 8. This Court had carefully gone through the allegations made in the charge sheet and this Court is satisfied that these are all factual issues which cannot be gone into at this stage. Liberty is given to the petitioners to urge all these grounds at the appropriate stage. 9. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 17-3-2010 AM