HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2284 OF 2009 DATED.02-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 (For short, ‘A-2’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in F.I.R. in Crime No.129 of 2009, pending on the file of Kancharapalem Police station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A-2, the Respondent No.2 is the De- facto complainant in the First Information Report. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the First Information Report. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The marriage of A-1 in the case with the de-facto complainant was performed in the year 1996. Subsequently, after the marriage they were blessed with two children. Later A-1, who is working as Constable, was transferred to Visakhapatnam in the year 1999. Thereafter they led happy marital life for about four years. Consequently, he developed illicit intimacy with A-2 Home Guard who joined in III Town Police station, Visakhapatnam in the year 2003. From then there was a change in the attitude of A-1 towards the de-facto complainant, thereby he used to abuse and beat the de-facto complainant. When the de-facto complainant questioned about his illegal intimacy with A-2 to the Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, A-2 was transferred to Malkapuram Police Station but still A-1 has continued his illegal intimacy with A-2 and is not looking after the de-facto complainant and the children and A-1 married A-2 on 16-12-2009. Hence, A-2 is liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 that as per the prosecution record only A-1 involved in harassing his wife i.e. the de- facto complainant which is punishable under Section 498-A IPC and it is only alleged that A-1 is having illicit intimacy with A-2 and having such illegal intimacy with A-1 involved in harassing the de-facto complainant and hence the question of application of Section 498-A I.P.C. in so far as A-2 is concerned, does not arise at all. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State has opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. In fact, as per the corresponding Charge sheet, there are no allegations of A-2 harassing the de-facto complainant punishable under Section 498-A IPC, whereas it is only alleged that A-1 developed illegal intimacy with A-2 and got married A-2 on a particular date. So, the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is not tenable so far as A-2 is concerned and to that extent the proceedings in the Calender Case are liable to be quashed. 8. It is also further contended by the learned counsel for A-2 that interim stay of arrest of A-2 was granted by this Court on 09-04-2009 and in spite of that the Police concerned conducted the corresponding investigation and filed the charge sheet, which therefore are not tenable. In fact, on the said date, such a stay was granted and subsequent to that further investigation of the case was done by the police and the corresponding charge sheet was filed against A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, which therefore is not tenale. Hence, the Police have to conduct 297 reinvestigation in the case starting from the proceedings which stood by the date of granting the stay order. Accordingly, with the above observations the Criminal Petition is allowed, in part, quashing the entire proceedings in Crime No.129 of 2009 pending on the file of Kancharapalem Police station, Visakhapatnam in so far as the A-2 is concerned only for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:02-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2284 OF 2009 December, 02, 2011 DSH