THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8270 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 preferred this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.443 of 2007 on the file of the Special Mobile Court, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District, filed for the offences under Sections 494 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {“IPC” for brevity} and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The de facto complainant’s husband, K.Sridhar, married the first petitioner herein in the year 2000 when the marriage of the de facto complainant and K.Sridhar was in existence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the following facts for consideration of this Court. (1) The first petitioner is not aware of the existence of first marriage between the de facto complainant and K.Sridhar. On knowing that K.Sridhar was already married and the marriage is in existence, the first petitioner filed O.P.No.350 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby, the learned Judge declared the marriage between the first petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant as null and void. (2) Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that knowing that the de facto complainant’s husband has already married the de facto complainant, the first petitioner lodged a complaint for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, which was registered in crime No.76 of 2007 on the file of the Station House Officer, Pattabipuram Police Station, Guntur and after filing of charge sheet, it was numbered as C.C.No.509 of 2008. This Court heard the arguments and also perused the records. Admittedly, the second marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant’s husband took place in the year 2000. Further, to attract an offence under Section 494 of IPC, the existence of first marriage at the time of second marriage must be there. In the present case, the first petitioner married the husband of the de facto complainant, when the first marriage was in existence. Further, the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, passed an order declaring the marriage between the first petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant as null and void and the said order is also an ex parte order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the marriage between the first petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant when the first marriage was in existence would attract an offence under Section 494 of IPC. The facts that the first petitioner is not aware of the existence of first marriage between the de facto complainant and K. Sridhar and that the first petitioner herein lodged the complaint against the husband of the de facto complainant only in the year 2007 have to be appreciated only by the trial Court. Hence, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.443 of 2007. However, the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with, except the dates on which the trial Court insists for their presence. Subject to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of and miscellaneous petitioners, if any, filed shall stand closed. _______________ (RAJA ELANGO, J) 12th September 2011 RRB