THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 4595 of 2009 Order: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A6 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.117 of 2009 of Chilakalapudi Police Station, Krishna District, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court at Machilipatnam has no jurisdiction, since the second respondent/de facto complainant did not mention that the second marriage of her husband and the petitioner herein was performed within the jurisdiction of Machilipatnam Court. The second respondent herein is the de facto complainant. She filed a complaint making allegations against her husband and in-laws. Initially she alleged that her husband developed illicit intimacy with the petitioner herein, but subsequently she alleged that her husband, who is accused No.1, married the petitioner herein and leading marital life with her and also begot some children. Admittedly, she did not specifically mention the date or place of second marriage of her husband with the petitioner herein. But, merely because the date or place of second marriage have not been given, it cannot be said that the Court at Machilipatnam has no jurisdiction to try the case. Anyhow, this Court cannot give any finding on facts at this stage. The truth or otherwise of the allegations have to be gone into by the trial Court. Whether the husband of the second respondent has again married the petitioner or not, whether the said marriage has been proved or not and whether the said marriage was performed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Machilipatnam or not are the points that have to be gone into by the trial Court after full fledged trial. By a reading of the complaint itself it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 494 IPC have not been made out. Therefore, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A6 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. However, as far as the allegations under Section 498-A IPC are concerned, it appears that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioner/A6 in the complaint. Hence, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner/A6 in respect of the offence under Section 498-A IPC are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part and the proceedings against the petitioner/A6 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC alone are quashed. The police concerned may investigate the case against the petitioner/A6 only in respect of the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 29.09.2011 Nsr