HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1940 of 2007 O R D E R: This Criminal Petition is filed by accused 3 to 7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.712 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Vijayawada. 2. The 1st respondent is the complainant, who filed private complaint in the lower Court against A.1 to A.7 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 417, 494 and 497 IPC. The complainant is husband of A.1. A.3 to A.7 are relations of A.1. A.2 is stated to be son of landlord in whose house the complainant and A.1 were living for some time. It is alleged that A.1 developed illegal intimacy with A.2 and subsequently married him as second husband while her marriage with the complainant was subsisting. The lower Court after recording sworn statement of the complainant passed the following order: “On perusal of sworn statement and case record, there is a material against accused and taken on file under Section 494 IPC against A.1 and A.7 and taken on file against A.1 and under Section 417 IPC. Call on 07.02.2006. Issue SS to all the accused”. 3. It is not known as to why the lower Court ordered issue of summonses to all the accused, when the lower Court took the case on file against A.1 and A.7 only for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and against A.1 only for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC. Latter part of the order relating to issuing of summonses to all the accused is incorrect having regard to former portion of the order, wherein the lower Court took the case on file against A.1 and A.7 only. There appears to be some bungling even with regard to the mentioning of A.7 as against the offence under Section 494 IPC. A.7 is no other than brother of A.1. In the absence of the alleged second husband before the Criminal Court, A.1 alone cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. Even in the order dated 20.12.2006, originally it was typed as A.2, but later the number 2 was struck off and typed 7 by its side making it as A- 7. Even as per allegations in the complaint, A.3 to A.7 are stated to have cheated the complainant by supporting indecent activity of A.1. The lower Court did not take the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC against A.7. Therefore, absolutely no case is made out against A.3 to A.7, who are the petitioners herein, having regard to allegations contained in the complaint and the order dated 20.12.2006 of the lower Court. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing C.C.No.712 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Vijayawada, insofar as the petitioners/A.3 to A.7 are concerned. But however, it is open to the first respondent/complainant to approach the lower Court and to adduce further evidence by way of further sworn statement insofar as A.2 is concerned for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 20th November, 2009. PNV