IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION No. 2 4 8 2 OF 2007 Between: Thallapally Rani @ Rama (A2) & 5-Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. The State, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D. PU7RNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION No. 2 4 8 2 OF 2007 O R D E R : The petitioners are A2 to A7 in Cr.No.137 of 2006 of I- Town Police Station, Karimnagar and they are accused of offences punishable under section 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is alleged that marriage of the second respondent- defacto complainant took place about four years ago with A-1 and that he looked after her well initially and that since six months when A-2 who is the earlier wife joined A-1, all the accused began harassing the defacto complainant, demanding to get additional dowry of Rs.30,000/-. A-2 is first wife of A-1. A-4 is husband and A5 to A7 are children of A-3, who is elder sister of A-1. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even as per allegations in F.I.R., the second respondent is bigamous wife of A-1 and that admittedly A-2 is first wife of A-1 and that therefore marriage of the second respondent with A-1 is null and void. He placed reliance on SAVITABEN SOMABHAI BHATIYA V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS[1], in this regard. 4. On the other hand, it is contended by the second respondent’s counsel that without knowledge of the first marriage, the second respondent married A-1 and lived with him for four years and delivered two children through A-1 and that her marriage may not be declared as null and void. 5. This Court on criminal side cannot decide validity of the second respondent’s marriage with A-1. That question has to be decid4ed by the marital court in appropriate proceedings. But, this case has to be decided on the basis of second respondent’s own allegations in F.I.R. When the second respondent herself admits that there is a prior marriage of A-1 with A-2 and that the first wife also joined A-1 to harass the second respondent, it must be held that a bigamous wife cannot be entitled to invoke section 498-A I.P.C. against relations of her husband. A-1 is not a party to this petition. 6. Having regard to legal consequences that emerge from allegations of the second respondent herself in F.I.R. are taken on their face value, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/A-2 to A-7 are entitled to relief in this petition. 7. Hence, the petition is allowed, quashing FIR in Cr.No. 137 of 2006 of I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar district, in so far as the petitioners 1 to 6/A-2 to A7 are concerned. ____________________________________ Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu.. 02-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO. 2 4 8 2 OF 2007 Circulation Entry No. 2 5 Date: 02-06-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L [1] ) AIR-2005 SUPREME COURT 1809 (1)