THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 584 of 2009. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 16 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni, Kurnool District. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. On the report lodged by the 2nd respondent a case in Cr.No. 273 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 494 and 420 IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered by the Police, Adoni and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and the same is numbered as C.C.No. 16 of 2009. Prior to filing of the report before the police, Adoni, the 2nd respondent also filed a complaint petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Raidurg, Ananthapur District, which was referred to the police, Raidurg for investigation and report and after the investigation, the Police Raidurg filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No. 25 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Raidurg. I have perused the complaints lodged by the 2nd respondent in both the cases. Almost similar allegations have been made in both the complaints, except a bald allegation that the petitioner contracted 2nd marriage during the subsistence of the 1st marriage. A perusal of the 2nd report filed before the police, Adoni goes to show that the 2nd respondent did not specifically mention as to the date when the petitioner contracted 2nd marriage and as to where he married another woman and as to the name and other particulars of the 2nd wife. Simply she stated that she came to know about the 2nd marriage. In the absence of any such particulars, the allegation of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner contracted 2nd marriage with another women is baseless. Further, the petitioner belongs to Muslim community and as such the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC is not attracted against the petitioner and consequently the question of cheating the 2nd respondent by contracting 2nd marriage does not arise. If the offences under Sections 494 and 420 IPC are deleted, the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are one and the same in both the cases. Further, filing of two complaints by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner one at Raidurg and another at Adoni goes to show that she wants to harass him and it amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No. 16 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the entire proceedings in the above C.C. are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court while disposing of this criminal petition, the learned Magistrate, Raidurg shall proceed with the trial of the case in C.C.No. 25 of 2009 and assess the evidence independently and dispose of the case, in accordance with law. _____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 11.11.2010. note: Issue c.c. in one week. B/o. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 584 of 2009. ORDER: Dt. 11.11.2010.