IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3564 of 2009 DATE: 12.12.2011 Between: Rentachintala Venkata Seshapani Sharma @ Seshaiah Sharma …… Petitioner And Rentachintala Venkata Srilakshmi and another …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3564 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant took place on 15.06.1978. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the 1st respondent’s parents gave Rs.5,000/- in cash and 4 tolas of gold. It is not alleged that the said things were given to the accused muchless on his demand. It is further alleged that the petitioner harassed her to bring additional dowry and to provide job to him and that her parents recommended for his job in Mahanandi Devastanam as Archaka, which he got. The petitioner filed O.P. No.284 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nandyal for divorce against the 1st respondent under Section 13(i)(b) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage. By order dated 03.09.1993 in O.P. No.284 of 1988 that Court allowed the said petition granting divorce. As against the said order, the 1st respondent filed C.M.A. No.268 of 1994 in this Court; and this Court by judgment dated 23.08.1996 allowed the appeal setting aside the decree of divorce. 2) The 1st respondent gave the present report to the police on 15.05.2009 alleging that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with one A.Parvathi originally and thereafter with one Varalakshmi and that subsequently the petitioner married Varalakshmi as his second wife and they have two school going children. It is main allegation of the 1st respondent that the petitioner was approaching her for a paper giving consent for his second marriage with Varalakshmi and that he has been physically and mentally harassing her for the same. The said harassment for a paper giving consent for second marriage, will not amount to cruelty as defined under clause (a) or clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner’s second marriage with Varalakshmi was in the year 1994 after granting of divorce by the Sub Court and before receipt of notice from the High Court in appeal. In any event, there was no stay of decree of divorce granted by the High Court pending C.M.A. No.268 of 1994. On reading of the entire allegations in F.I.R, I am satisfied that they do not contain basic ingredients required for the penal provisions invoked by the police in the F.I.R. 3) Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.92/2009 of Mahanandi Police Station, Kurnool District. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 12, 2011 ksh