HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3729 OF 2009 Dated : 30.11.2010. Between : B.Satyanarayana Murthy & another … Petitioners-A.1 & A.2 a n d 1) B.Ratnakumari 2) The State of A.P. … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3729 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.245 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The case of the complainant-first respondent, in brief, is that her marriage with A.1 was performed on 22.10.1994 at Rampachowdavaram and they lived happily for three years. Thereafter A.1 deserted her, for which, she filed C.C.No.125 of 1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 323 IPC wherein the learned Magistrate acquitted A.1 as against which the complainant preferred Crl.R.C.No.841 of 2002, which is pending before this Court. Further, the complainant also filed M.C.No.11 of 1999 before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, seeking maintenance. While so, the first petitioner-A.1 filed O.P.No.129 of 2000 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, seeking divorce, which was allowed by order, dated 26.07.2002. As against the same, A.1 filed C.M.A.No.1092 of 2003 which is also pending before this Court. It is further alleged that in spite of the knowledge of pendency of C.M.A.No.1092 of 2003, the first accused got married the second accused illegally and the second accused also begotten a male child through the first accused. Hence, the complaint against A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. Heard. Now the point for consideration before this Court is ‘whether the accused can be proceeded for the alleged offence punishable under Section 494 IPC?” For better appreciation of the matter, the following dates are necessary to be incorporated: 1) Date of marriage : 22.10.1994 2) Date of grant of divorce : 26.07.2002 3) Date of lodging complaint : In the year 2009 It is seen from the abovementioned dates, the present complaint is filed six years after divorce was granted by the Family Court. The complainant filed the complaint on the basis of the information received by her, relevant portion of the complaint is extracted below: “g) While the facts are such, recently the complainant came to know that the 1st accused married the 2nd accused even during he pendency of O.P.129 of 2000, the petition filed by the 1st accused himself for the grant of divorce and that he is leading a marital life with the 2nd accused, who is also an employee in the LIC and working at Kakinada, the place of the 1st accused. The complainant also came to know that they were blessed with a son and the 2nd accused had delivery of a male child in a private nursing home at Kakinada and that he entries made in the Nursng Home make it clear that the accused herein are the parents of the child. The complainant in order to know the true facts of his marriage, the marriage of the 1st accused with the 2nd accused and the other particulars regarding the date and place of their marriage, the nominations given by them before the LIC authorities, for all benefits including, medical aid from the department by them and the names of the dependents shown by them in their nomination etc., records submitted by them to LIC, where they are working, approached the LIC department for furnishing copies of relevant information which is available with them under Right to Information Act in order to enable the complainant to come forward before this Honourable Court with all the required information for this complaint. But the LIC officials informed the complainant in writing that the 1st accused is objecting for supply of the information required by the complainant on the ground that it is his personal information and shall not be divulged to the complainant (who is none other than his own wife) and the officials of the LIC department in order to help the accused refused to supply the information required by the complainant.” Even though both the counsel raised number of points for adjudication in this matter, this Court is of the view that this petition can be disposed of on the sole point as to whether the complaint discloses any offence against the accused. It is well settled that if a person while in existence of first marriage marries another person then offence under Section 494 IPC would attract. The contention of the respondent’s counsel is that since the complainant preferred an appeal against the grant of divorce, the act of A.1 marrying A.2 is punishable under Section 494 IPC. But the perusal of the entire complaint reveals that the complainant only relied on the documents received by her under Right of information to the effect that the name of the second accused is recorded in the official records as wife of the first accused. Even assuming for a moment A.1 to have admitted that he married A.2 for the second time, such admission is not sufficient to attract an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. It is the duty of the complainant to prove that during the pendency of the valid marriage, A.1 married for the second time and such second marriage also to be a valid marriage in the eye of law. In the present case, in her complaint, the complainant stated that she came to know the second marriage of A.1 from others and on admission by A.2 that he married for the second time, but there is no whisper in the complaint regarding the manner in which the alleged second marriage was conducted, as to who conducted the same and also the persons who witnessed it. When these details are lacking in the complaint, accused cannot be proceeded further. Further, the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands. Earlier litigations between the parties clearly show that the complainant with intent to harass the accused invoked various provisions of criminal and civil laws. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present complaint is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C.No.245 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 30.11.2010 sur