IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.558 of 2010 DATE:26.08.2010 Between: Shri Choppari Srinivas and another …… Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.558 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 5/A-1 and A-3 to A-6 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 494, 109 I.P.C in C.C. No.259 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sultanabad. A-2 who is not the petitioner herein is stated to be bigamous wife of A-1. A-3 and A-4 are parents of A-1. A-5 is younger brother of A-1. A-6 is paternal uncle of A- 1. There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent/complainant is wife of A-1. It is alleged by her in the complaint that after throwing away the complainant with children from the house in 1st week of June, 2009, A-1 married A-2 at Ranganayaka Swamy temple on 31.07.2009 at 11.45 A.M and that A-3 to A-6 abetted A-1 to go for his marriage with A-2 and that A- 2 having knowledge of marital status of A-1 with the complainant, underwent marriage with A-1. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as per information obtained by the petitioners from Chairman and Priest of Sri Ranganayaka Devastanam, Neerukulla under the Right to Information Act, no such marriage was performed on 31.07.2009 in the temple. If proved, they may serve as defence evidence for he accused in the criminal case. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot appreciate evidence muchless defence evidence put forward by the petitioners. It is for the trial Court to appreciate evidence after recording of entire evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that this case is foisted as a counter blast for C.C. No.140 of 2007 filed by Godavarikhani I Town Police against one Kola Narsa Goud for offences punishable under Sections 448, 497, 506 I.P.C. As per allegations therein, the 2nd respondent was indulging in adultery with the said Kola Narsa Goud and that he was caught red handed when he was found in the house in the absence of A-1. According the 2nd respondent, there was mediation after that case and that the 2nd respondent joined A-1 and lead marital life upto May, 2009, for about two years. Again it is a matter for appreciation of circumstances whether the present private complaint was filed as a counter blast for the earlier bigamy case or not. 4) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that a fictitious person is shown as A-2 with a fictitious address with a view to harass the petitioners and as an abuse of process of law. It is for the lower Court which took cognisance of the case for the offences against A-1 to A-6 to secure presence of A-2 also and try the case. If there is no A-2 at all, there will be no case at all as against other accused also. It would be premature for this Court to conclude that A-2 is a fictitious person, simply on the ground that no notice could be served on A-2 by post by the petitioners. Thus, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in this case filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners in C.C. No.259 of 2009. 5) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 27, 2010 KSH