THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8650 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 509 I.P.C. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was in the year 2005. After coming to know about their marriage, first wife of the petitioner gave report to the Police in Crime No.146 of 2006 alleging offences under Sections 494 and 498-A I.P.C. C.C.No.213 of 2007 is filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Excise Cases for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. against the 2nd respondent and others. It is alleged that the petitioner married the 2nd respondent by suppressing his subsisting first marriage and by practising deception. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the said allegations are contrary to the allegations in Cr.No.453 of 2008 of Uppal Police Station in which the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot appreciate the respective contentions with reference to documentary evidence; and it is for the trial Court to undertake the said exercise. It is further contended that there cannot be any offence under Section 509 I.P.C. as the 2nd respondent is only wife of the petitioner. But, it being a bigamous marriage for the petitioner, it cannot be said that it is a valid marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is coming to the office where she was working and was disturbing her and was annoying her in the presence of her colleagues. Even if the 2nd respondent is wife of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot do the said activity in a public place against his own wife. 2. It is alleged that on 19.05.2009, the accused tried to attack the 2nd respondent with acid bottle to kill her and at the instance of neighbours, the accused ran away. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that no time and place of offence were mentioned in the charge sheet about the same. The above allegation indicates that the said incident took place at her house when neighbours intervened. Failure to mention time and place of offence in the charge sheet cannot be a ground for quashing the charge sheet itself. In these circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that the charge sheet is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 3. Even though the 2nd respondent is stated to have instituted several cases against the petitioner, it is no ground to throw away this charge sheet; and each case has to be considered on its own merits. There are no grounds to interfere with the matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:16.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8650 of 2009 Dt:16.12.2011 ysk