HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 5663 of 2008 DATED: 27.12.2011 Between: N. Lakshmi Narmada .. Petitioner/ A2 And 1. The State of A.P. 2. Konda Laxmi Kumari .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner herein is A2 (a lady) in C.C. No. 100 of 2008 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. She filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said case against her. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are those punishable under Sections 498-A, 324 and 506(2) read with 109 IPC. The de facto complainant – Konda Laxmi Kumari is stated to be the legally wedded wife of A1 while the petitioner is stated to be the concubine or the second wife of A1. It is now represented by the petitioner’s counsel that A1 – Konda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana in the case is no more and he died on 16.05.2006. This is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is also seen that though notice has been taken out to the de facto complainant – 2nd respondent herein, by the petitioner’s counsel, she did not turn up in spite of the fact that he filed proof of service of the said notice on her. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the allegations made in the F.I.R. and charge sheet disclose a case against A1, who died, but not the petitioner-A2. He also submits that A1 married the petitioner concealing his first marriage or his relationship with the de facto complainant and she has nothing to do with the affairs of de facto complainant. It is also stated that all the properties of A1 are now in the possession of the de facto complainant and she is enjoying the same. 4. A perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R. would show that the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 cannot be rejected as baseless. It is seen that the grudge of de facto complainant is against A1 alone. 5. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that A1 died and the de facto complainant has not shown any interest to contest this matter, I am of the opinion that the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed on the above ground. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. It is however made clear that this order shall not be understood as expressing any opinion on the validity of the alleged marriages of A1 with the de facto complainant or the petitioner. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 27.12.2011 bcj