HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2750 of 2008 Date : 23.11.2011 Between : G. Vidya Sagar & others. …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2750 of 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.630 of 2007 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioners, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC, and the same was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation. In the aforesaid complaint, it is stated by the complainant that she is a divorcee and her parents have arranged her marriage with the 1st petitioner, who is also a divorcee and agreed to give a double bed room flat worth about Rs.15 lakhs and a car worth about Rs.8 lakhs towards dowry, after completion of his P.G. course, as he was doing 1st year of P.G. at the time of arranging the marriage. Her marriage was solemnized on 11th December 2004 in Sai Baba Temple situated at Pochamma Basthi, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, in the presence of elders and relatives. It is stated that after the marriage, they went to Shirdi and when they were returning back, it was disclosed by the 1st petitioner that he had not obtained divorce from his 1st wife and some criminal cases are pending, and to clear off those cases, he was in need of money. Therefore, she was harassed by her husband, sister-in-law and the parents of her husband for additional dowry. On the aforesaid complaint, when it was referred by the learned Magistrate to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a case was registered in Crime No.258 of 2006 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. During the course of investigation, several witnesses were examined, and ultimately, final report was filed stating that the marriage between the 2nd respondent and 1st petitioner was not valid and that the investigation also did not reveal any material evidence to accept the statement of the complainant that there is a marriage between her and the 1st petitioner and that the petitioners have demanded dowry from the complainant, so as to proceed against the petitioners/accused under Section 498-A of IPC. After filing of final report by the Police, the complainant/2nd respondent herein has filed a protest petition before the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In the protest petition, it is stated that the 1st petitioner herein has given an advertisement in Eenadu telugu newspaper under the caption “pelli pandiri” on 12.09.2004, stating that he is a divorcee and sought for a divorcee or a widow for alliance. There were talks between the elders and family members, and thereafter, the marriage of complainant with the 1st petitioner was performed on 11th December 2004. It is alleged in the protest petition that after the marriage of the complainant with the 1st petitioner, the complainant came to know that the 1st petitioner/accused No.1 did not obtain divorce from his first wife, but he married the complainant without dissolution of marriage with his first wife, with an intent to get dowry from the complainant, and thus, it is alleged that she was cheated by the 1st petitioner and he also committed the offence punishable under Section 496 of IPC by marrying the complainant during the life time of his first wife. In view of the protest petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 496, 315 and 503 of IPC. In this criminal petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the final report filed by the Police, the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 496, 315 and 503 of IPC. It is submitted that as the complaint was filed under Section 498-A of IPC and the investigation did not reveal any incriminating evidence in support of the said charge, there is no basis for taking cognizance against the petitioners. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that the 1st petitioner/accused No.1 has committed the offence of cheating by marrying the complainant, dishonestly mentioning that he obtained divorce from his first wife. It is stated that in view of the said allegation, and as the 1st petitioner married the complainant during the life time of his spouse, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance for the alleged offences. Though there is appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent/complainant, there is no representation in the forenoon and afternoon sessions. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the final report filed by the Police after completion of investigation in Crime No. 258 of 2006, and also the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Though there is an allegation of harassment for dowry by the 1st petitioner, who is the husband of 2nd respondent and others i.e. petitioners 2 to 4, who are his parents and sister, in the investigation made by the Police, it is categorically stated that no material evidence is found in support of the complaint made for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC, except the statement of the complainant. Even looking at the contents of the protest petition, it is clear the allegations are only against the 1st petitioner herein alleging that he has cheated the complainant by not obtaining divorce from his first spouse, before marrying her, and thus, he has committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. In the protest petition, it is also alleged that as the 1st petitioner has married the complainant during the life time of his first spouse, he is also liable for punishment under Sections 495 of IPC. In the protest petition, the complaint is only with regard to the 1st petitioner and there is no protest on the report filed by the Police on the allegations made against petitioners 2 to 4, who are the parents and sister of the 1st petitioner. Even if the contents of the complaint, final report and the protest petition are looked at, no case is made out against petitioners 2, 3 and 4, so as to proceed for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 496, 315 and 503 of IPC against petitioners 2 to 4. As much as the specific allegations in the protest petition are only against the 1st petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to consider quashing of proceedings against the 1st petitioner, but at the same time, in the absence of any allegations in the protest petition against petitioners 2 to 4, and in view of the final report filed by the Police in Crime No.258 of 2006, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings so far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed in part, quashing the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.630 of 2007 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, so far as petitioners 2 to 4 herein, who are accused Nos.2 to 4, are concerned. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd November 2011 ajr