HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.P.No.1283 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2009, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 and read with Section 34 IPC, on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate/Special Mobile Court, Khammam, on the ground that the petitioner herein (A-4 in the Calendar Case) (for short ‘accused’) got nothing to do with the allegations averred in the complaint and there is no prima facie evidence with regard to the allegations made against her and, she has been falsely implicated in this case which was filed after lapse of two years from the date of cause of action. 2. The petitioner is A-4 and the 1st respondent is the de facto complainant in the case. For convenience, I refer them as arrayed in the calendar case. 3. The point for consideration is whether the sufficient grounds are there to quash proceedings against the accused. 4. The prosecution case is as follows: A-1 is the husband of the complainant, A-2 is the father of A-1, A- 3 is the brother of A-1, A-4 is the second wife of A-1 and A-5 is the wife of A-3. The marriage of the de facto complainant with A-1 took place on 06-03-1992 at Kusumanchi village. At the time of marriage, A-1 was given an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs towards dowry and he, A-2, A-3 and A-5 were given household articles. After living happily for sometime and giving birth to a child, disputes arose between A-1 and t h e de facto complainant. A-1 started demanding her to bring additional dowry and harassed her on that context. A-2 and A-3 were residing separately from A-1 and the de facto complainant, but in the same compound. A-2, A-3 and A-5 used to come to the house of the de facto complainant and A-1 and abuse the de facto complainant in filthy language. They also used to encourage A-1 to give divorce to the de facto complainant. A-1 used to come to the house lately every day in an intoxication condition. Later the de facto complainant came to know about illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-4. In fact, A-1 was staying in the house of A-4 and coming to the house weekly twice or thrice and when the same was questioned, A-1 along with the other accused beat the de facto complainant indiscriminately and necked her out. Finally, in the month of March 2006, A-1 came to the house in fully drunken state. Then A-2, A-3 and A-5 beat the de facto complainant indiscriminately. However, later there was mediation and settlement between the parties with regard to certain properties before elders. However, A-1 got registered some part of the properties in the name of the son of A-4 clearly noting A-4 as his wife. Further, A-1 married A-4 illegally in active collusion with A-2 and A-3. Thereafter, the de facto complainant approached the concerned police and gave report and because the police did not take any action against the accused, she was forced to give a private complaint. 5. The learned counsel for the accused has contended that there are no specific allegation against A-4 in the calendar case and hence, the proceedings are to be quashed so far as she is concerned. 6. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the de facto complainant that there are specific allegations against A-4 and A-2 and, hence, necessary trial has to be conducted against her. 7. On record, A-4 and A-1 got married which is liable for punishment under Section 494 IPC since A-1 already was married to the de facto complainant. This Court cannot go into the merits of the case. Unless and until, necessary prosecution is conducted, the complexity of A-4 in the case under Section 494 IPC cannot be determined. 8. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. It is observed that because A-4 is a lady, her presence is dispensed with before the trial Court till the commencement of the trial of the case. ___________________________ 30th November 2011 G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J kvr