IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2715 of 2007 Between: B.Mahender and others. . .Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2715 of 2007 ORDER : This petition is filed by the Accused 1 to 8 (A-1 to A-8) under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.1201 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar relating to Crime No.225 of 2005 of Woman Police Station, Karimnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109 I.P.C. 2) It is alleged that the victim Borlakunta Usha Rani married A-1 on 27.04.1992 and that they have one daughter and one son and that there was harassment of the victim by A-1 and his family members for the sake of additional dowry and case in Crime No.43 of 2000 of Karimnagar II Town Police Station was registered in that regard and that A-1 applied for divorce in Adilabad Court and that A-1 again married A-8, while his marital relationship with the victim has been subsisting and that A-2 to A-7 abetted A-1 to go for bigamous marriage with A-8 knowingly. After registering report of the 2nd respondent as Crime No.225 of 2005, the police investigated the crime and filed charge sheet before the Magistrate. 3) It is contended that A-8 is not bigamous wife of A-1. In this Criminal Petition also, A-8 is described as wife of Srinivasa Rao, whereas A-1’s name is B.Mahender. While so, the 2nd respondent filed another private complaint simultaneously against A-1 to A-8 and another by name Dr.P.Suryanarayana Reddy before the same Magistrate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109 I.P.C. The Magistrate after making due enquiry, in which sworn statements of the 2nd respondent and other witnesses were recorded, came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent could not make out prima facie case against A-1 to A-8 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109 I.P.C and dismissed the private complaint in C.F. No.817 of 2006 by the order dated 20.09.2006. As against the said order dated 20.09.2006, the 2nd respondent preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.66 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Karimnagar. The 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar by the judgment dated 18.10.2007 dismissed the revision petition confirming the order passed by the Magistrate. Both the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge in those proceedings came to a definite conclusion that the 2nd respondent could not make out any prima facie case against A-1 to A-8 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 109 I.P.C. 3) It appears that the police mechanically filed charge sheet in C.C. No.1201 of 2006 before the Magistrate in a casual manner without applying their mind. In view of the order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the Magistrate in C.F.No.17 of 2006 and Judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in C.R.P. No.66 of 2006, I am of the opinion that C.C. No.1201 of 2006 filed by the police cannot be allowed to continue. Otherwise, it becomes sheer abuse of process of law. 4) In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.1201 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 24, 2009 KSH