THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.1228/2008 Dt,22-7-2010 1.G.Lavanya and another ..Petitioners V. 1. Kandapu Umarani and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.1228/2008 ORAL ORDER Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in CC No.253/2006 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad. In the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., by the first respondent herein against the petitioners/accused, it was alleged that petitioners/accused are wife and husband respectively; petitioner No.1/A-1 contested for election of Corporator from Ward No.43 of Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad from Bharatiya Janata Party; and the accused were involved in corrupt practice of securing the votes whose names are not mentioned in the voter list, which was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. Further, the children of the accused are studying in Holy Mary High School, Subhashnagar, Nizambad. A-1 with the active connivance of A-2 have given a wrong declaration that they have only two children though they are having three children. As per Section 21-B of Municipal Corporation Act, a person having more than two children shall be disqualified for election or for continuing as a member. Accused No.1 who is having three children is not entitled to continue as a member (Corporator) of the Municipal Corporation of Nizamabad. The police after due investigation into the crime filed the charge sheet stating that from the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it was established that A-1 cheated the Government by giving declaration that she is having only two children though she is having three children and A-2, who is the husband of A-1, and who is working as City Cable Dish Contractor, promised to the public that he will provide free TV cable connection for six months if A-1 won the election and therefore the acts of the accused constitute the offences for punishable under Sections 171(G), 196, 417, 418, 420 IPC and Sec. 609 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that OP No.897/2005 filed by the first respondent herein for setting aside the election of the first petitioner herein and to declare the election of the first petitioner as Corporator from Ward No.43 of Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad as void and the said OP was allowed declaring the election of the petitioner No.1/A-1 as void, against which, CMA has been filed by the first petitioner herein and is pending, therefore, it is pre-mature to conclude that the petitioner No.1/A-1 is disqualified. Further there is no averment against A-2 for the offences alleged, and therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be dismissed. Whether petitioner No.1/A-2 is having three children and filed a false declaration having only two children is a matter which can be decided on the evidence adduced by the parties, therefore, the proceedings against A-1 cannot be quashed. Coming to the allegation against A-2, according to the complaint, he promised to the public that he would provide free TV cable connection for six months if A-1 won in the elections and lured the public for votes, which amounts to an offence. The question, whether A-2 deceived the public to vote for A-1 stating that if she won the election, he will give free cable connection for six months, can be gone into during the course of trial. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused at the initial stage, but at the same time the prosecution should be given an opportunity to prove the charges levelled against the petitioners/accused. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.22-7-2010 kmr