HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5304 of 2007 Date: 22-04-2010 Between: Kathika Veeraiah ……….. Petitioner and The State of A.P. and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5304 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate at Tenali. 2. The second respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner. She filed the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging, inter alia, that she worked as ANM in Primary Health Centre and retired from service and that she married the petitioner on 02-02- 1977 and they lead happy marital life. Subsequently, she came to know that the petitioner had already married and that suppressing his first marriage, he had deceived and married her. It is also her case that, while they were living together, the petitioner had taken away about Rs.6 lakhs with a promise that he will improve the money, but he did not return any amount to her and thereby cheated her. 3. It is also alleged that on 12-05-2006 at about 9-00 PM, the petitioner trespassed into the house of the second respondent in a drunken state, abused her and threatened to sign on blank papers. When the second respondent raised cries, the neighbours came there and rescued her. The petitioner left the place threatening that he would kill her in case she fails to sign those papers. The matter was referred to the police and the police registered the case as Crime No.87 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 448 and 506 IPC. 4. After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report stating that the complaint is false. The second respondent filed a protest petition and her statement was record and it was registered as C.C.No.83 of 2007 and she gave complaint on 11-01-2007. 5. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent instead of filing the protest petition, filed second complaint on the same set of facts, which is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract any offence because when the wife had given certain amounts to the husband and when the husband had used the said amount for the purpose of the family expenses, it cannot be treated as cheating. It is also submitted that when the husband entered into his own house, the question of trespass does not arise 6. It is the settled law that the Magistrate need not accept the report filed by the police. As per the procedure the notice was issued to the second respondent. Then she filed the present complaint. Whether it is protest petition or second complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process. It is the discretion of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance, if a prima facie case is made out basing on the material placed before him. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in issuing the process. 7. On a reading of the complaint, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been made out. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 22-04-2010 YCR