Criminal Petition No. 1722 of 2009 · High Court · 2011

T HE HON’BLE SRI JUST ICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1722 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A2-Palle Savithri in C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, to quash the proceeding therein against her.

2. The 2nd respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad. She filed a complaint before XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, alleging inter alia that she is the wife of A1 D.Narasimhulu and she gave birth to four children and out of them two died. It is further stated in the complaint that A1 D.Narasimhulu married petitioner-A2, during the subsistence of her marital tie with A1. The other accusations, which have been made in the complaint are not much relevant, for disposal of this criminal petition. The petitioner along with A3 and A4 filed Crl.M.P.No.2647 of 2006 in C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, seeking discharge. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order, dated 07.02.2008. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the order, which reads as hereunder: “If we peruse the petition, the petitioners stated that the complainant herself left the company of A1 for whimsy reasons, did not return in spite of best efforts of A1. Then A1 got issued legal notice on 19.12.2002. Further the petition says that the complainant used to pester A1 to give her the house of A1 situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad for which she refused to do so. And the other contention of petition is that the petitioners No.2 & 3 have assisted A1 in committing an act of bigamy and when she approached them, seeking their help in restitution of conjugal rights, she sought a help for restitution of conjugal rights and further contended that these averments are devoid of truth. The allegations of the complaint and the counter contentions are quite contrary to each other. As per the petition contentions A2 is shown as servant maid of A3 & A4, when coming to the complaint, A2 is arrayed as second wife of A1 and that the second marriage was performed to A1 with the help of A3 & A4 which was denied by the petitioners in this petition. So to have just conclusion in this case, a full fledged trial is necessary. Unless and until a full fledged trial is conducted against all the accused, the truth will not come out. The allegations leveled against Petitioners No.1 to 3 and as such they are not entitled for discharge. The petitioners 1 to 3 are also having right to cross examine the witnesses produced by the complainant and put their defence. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for discharge.” The petitioner being unsuccessful in the discharge petition, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the prayer stated supra.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing 2nd respondent/complainant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the complaint averments are taken in to-to, there are no ingredients attributable to the petitioner for the offence under Section 494 IPC and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, amounts to abuse of process of Court. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [1] .

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/ complainant submits that summons in C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, came to be served on the petitioner herein as the wife of A1 D.Narasimhulu and it is a matter for the trial Court to come to a conclusion whether the petitioner got knowledge of the earlier marriage of A1 with the 2nd respondent/complainant and the birth of the 4 children out of the wedlock and therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein.

6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner along with two other accused approached the trial Court seeking discharge. The petition filed by the petitioner herein and two others seeking discharge came to be dismissed on

07.02.2008. Case is pending before the trial Court for the last more than 7 years. The question whether the petitioner got the knowledge of the marriage of A1 D.Narasimhulu with the 2nd respondent/ complainant is required to be gone into by the trial Court on full fledged trial. In view of the dismissal of the discharge petition moved by the petitioner along with two other accused, this Court is not inclined to consider this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Since the C.C.No.247 of 2004 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, is pending for more than 7 years, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:07t h December, 2011. Note: CC to XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad. B/O T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1722 of 2009 Date:07t h December, 2011 [1] II (1983) D.M.C. 421