IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5814 of 2006 BETWEEN: Mitta Veera Nagi Reddy, S/o. Peddi Reddy, aged 40 years, R/o. Kondavandlapalle, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District And others. …Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. And another …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5814 of 2006 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the accused Nos.1 to 10, for quashing First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.252 of 2006, dated 02.11.2006 of Rayachoti Urban Police Station, Kadapa District, relating to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 494 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant in Crime No. 252 of 2006 is one Mitta Veera Nagamma alias Savitri. She gave report to the police against Mitta Veera Nagi Reddy and his relations alleging that Mitta Veera Nagi Reddy (A-1) is her husband, and that their marriage took place on 15.11.1987 at Behrain, and that A-1 contracted second marriage with A-2 with the help of A-3 to A-10, and cheated the complainant. It is now contended by the counsel for petitioners 1 to 10 that Mitta Veera Nagamma was not wife of A-1 and that Mitta Veera Nagamma/second respondent herein, cannot be legally wedded wife of A-1 because she married one Jaripiti Subbarayudu alias Maistry Syed Basha, S/o. Venkata Swamy. The petitioner filed copy of Divorce Petition in O.P.No.18 of 1996 filed by Jaripiti Veera Nagamma against Jaripiti Subbarayudu on the file of Subordinate Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa District and also filed copy of order dated 04.12.1996 of that Court in that O.P., granting divorce to her. From these previous legal proceedings, it is contended by counsel for the petitioners that allegations in the report given by the second respondent are out and out false. On a look at description of Veera Nagamma contained in FIR and also description of Veera Nagamma contained in O.P.No.18 of 1996, there is doubt with regard to the identity of that person as one and the same. In my opinion, the proceedings in O.P.No.18 of 1996 cannot be taken for granted in this Criminal Petition for quashing Crime No.252 of 2006, because, this is a matter which has to be verified during investigation by the police. Therefore, the investigating officer in Crime No.252 of 2009 on the file of Rayachoti Urban Police Station, Kadapa District, is directed to find out identity of Veera Nagamma in O.P.No.18 of 1996 and also take into consideration the proceedings in O.P.No.18 of 1996 while deciding truth or otherwise of allegation made in the report given by the second respondent, and then submit final report before the Magistrate. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Send copy of this order to the Station House Officer, Rayachoti Urban Police Station, Kadapa District also. ___________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) November 06, 2009 BVV