The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad Through W.P.S. Srirarmpur, Mancherial District, Telangana. Jyothi Rathod, W/o. Gorsingh, Aged about 43 Years, Occ. Govt Employee, R/o. H No. 1-17618-13, Vikas Nagar, Mancherial, Mancherial District. ..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the crime registered vide impugned C.C. No. 858 of 2024 dt. 0610912024 registered U/sec. 498-A, 494, 506 of IPC and sec. 3,4 of DP Act on the file of the ll Additional Judicial First class magistrate, at Mancherial' Mancherial District, Telangana, in the interest of justice. ' LA. NO: 2OF 2025 PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatnthecircumstances stated in the I\,4emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant s;tay of all further proceedings incltrrlirrg stay of arrest in furtherance of the cr-inre registered vide FIR 5 of 2025, dl )(\109;2024 registered U/sec. 498-A. 494 5t)6 oi IPC ana sec. 3,4 of DP Act o'r the file of of the ll Additional Jr,rdrcial F|.st class magistrate, at ltilancherral lrlancherial District, Telangana in the rnterest of justice. This Petitron ccrning on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petitron and upon hearing the argumertts of sri R lvlangulaL ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, the Assrst: nt Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and of Ms' Chennaboina Sravant. Advocate for the Respondent No' 2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PE'rITION No.28OO OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed un,ie: Section 528 of BNSS seeking to quash the crime registered against the petitioners Nos.l to S/accused in C.C.No.85a of 2024 on the hle of the learned il Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mancherial, Mancherial District (for short, "the trial Court") registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A, 494 ' 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Mr.R.Mangulal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Ms.Chennaboina Sravani, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2lde facto complainant fiied a complaint before the concerned S.H.O. stating that her marriage was performed with petitioner No.1 on 1 1 .02.1996 in the presence of elders; that on demald, the parents of respondent No.2 gave cash worth Rs.2,00,000/-, five (5) tulas of gold, house hold articles worth Rupees one lakh as do'"vry to her husband; that after marriage petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, 2 who are her hr.rsberncl. mother-in-lalr., father irr lau' and brother- tn larr- respecti'. r:1r harassed her mentally and 1.1'ri'sicall], for s'arlt oi additional <ion r-r'; that r,,'hen she failed to bring adCitiona-l dos'ry', lirev tl. reatened to kill her; that acclr rerd No.1 marric,l petitioner Nc,.5 for th: scJond time during the srrl>sistence of first marriage arrd harassed her mentail5r. Basing on the said facts, the present crrrne is registered

4. Learned c:ounsel for the petitioners subnr ts that petitioner No.I ald respondent No.2 have obtained diur>rce by mutual consent on 06. iO.2023 before the caste elders :rnd that they were no more in thc rnatrimonial tie; that after t btaining divorce, petitioner No. 1 marricd another woman namel,' petitioner No.5; that responclen t No.2 also married again. Ttrcrefore, he states that the aliegations made against the petitione rs;, if investigated further, n oulcl rot rvithstand the scmtiny of lar,.'- Relying on the decision passed b1' the Honble Apex Court in Dr.Surajmani Stella Ku.lur lrs. Durga Charan Hansdah and anotherr and seeks to a,liori the Criminal Petition

5. Learnecl r:ounsel for respondent No.2 lr1 filing counter zrffidavrt conlerLds that mere agreement of se'paration has no ' (200I ) I Suprenre ( ou Crsc'i I l sanctitv in the eve of law arld that it cannot be stated to be a Divorce. To substantiate her contention, she relied on the decision passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Ravindra Pratap Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2

6. She further states that the pelitioners harassed her mentally and physically for want of additiona-l dowry and necked her out from the matrimonial home. Therefore, relying on the decision passed by the Hontrle Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lals, she seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the matter requires to be tried and only upon conducting a full- fledged trial, the lruth comes to light. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Crimina-l Petition.

8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 I.P.C., as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan4, are as follows:- "3. The essential ingredients of this offence are as follows:- (1) that the accused spouse must have contracted the irrst marriage ' 202+ scc Online MP 3554 r 1992 Supp (l)SCC ll5 '(L9zg) z scc no -l l2) that rrl:iie the first marriagi: ',r,:rs subsistins tlr,-- sp{)use cortccrncrl ulust havc contriictcd a second marrrilria, iulrl (3) thaL l)()rh [he marriages must be valid in thc ;rrrsc rhat the nc( ( :jsilrt' ceremonics rr-'c1Lr irr.-d bv the pr:rsonal larv eouemirrrl the paJties hacl trccn rllrh,pcrformed."

9. Havi:-rg rcqard to the submissions of all th ' learned counsel, on perusal o[ tl're mate ial availabie on record irnd relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour t in S.Nitheen & Others Vs. State of Kerala and anothers, th is Court is of the opinion that the order framing cl-rarge is erronc rus on the face of the record bcr:ause no person other tharr 1lr( spouse to the second marriage could have been chargr:rl for the offence punishable under Section 494 of I.P.C. simpli::tor. Hence, this Court is of the ','ier,,'that allorving the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 for the offence under Section 494 of [.P.C. rvould tantirmount to gross illegalitl' and at)use of process oI Court.

10. Further this Court, relving on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Kahkashan Kausar @) Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Othersa, Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and anotherT and Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2024 (Arising Out of SI-P (Criminait I'to(s).8529 of 20l9 j 6 2022 LawSuit (SC) 149 ' 202+.6CC OnLtne SC 3682 'i#q'**"/' .'+.' _! -r--/ ) anotherE, is of the opinion that general allegations are levelled against petitioner No.5 herern for the offences under Sections 498-4., 506 of I.P.C. arrd Sections 3 and 4 of the Dorvn' Prohibition Act and no specific arrd distincl a-llegations are made cut a.gainst her. In the absence of any specific role attri5uted to petitioner No.5, it would be unjust if she is forced to go through the tribulations of the trial for the offences cited supra. I 1. Accordinglr', the impugned proceedings in so far as the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are concerned in C.C.No.85B of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mancherial, Malcherial District for the offence punishable under Sections 494 of I.P.C. are hereby quashed

12. In so far as petitioner No.5 is concerned, the proceedings in C.C.No.8SB of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Mancherial, Mancherial District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4, 506 of I.P.C. ald Sections 3 ancl 4 of the Dowrv Prohibition Act are hereby quashed

13. The impugned proceedings in so far as petitioner No. 1 1S concerned in C.C.No.B58 of 2024 before the trial Court for the ' 1:o rz1 o s.c.t o+ t 6 offences un(ler Sections 498 A, 494,506 oi I.P.C. ald Sections 3 and .1 of the Dou,n Prohibitior-r Act shall go on; In so far as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 :rre concerried the impugr cd proceecling.s in C.C.No.B58 tf 2024 beforc the trial Couri lor th= ofl'ences undc'r Sections 498-A.. 506 ol l. P.C. and Sections 3 an<l 4 of the Dowrv Prohibition Act shall go on

14. As sought for b,r' the learned coLrnsel fol he petitioners the appearance ol petitioner Nos.2 to 4 is clisoensed u.ith ir-r C.C.No.B58 of 2024 on the lile of the lear r,:ci ll Additional Jr-rdicial First Class Magistrate, at M:Lnr:ir:r-ia1, Malcherial District, when represented by ttreir counsel on r,:cord, subject to filing an affida.vit by them stzrting lhat in tlrr:ir absence, the proceedings conducted by the ir counsel urll nrt be disputed by them in arl\/ marner. Hou,ever. the petitioner irlos.2 to 4 shall appear before the lerned Magistrate as and u'l .en their presence is required. In the event of failure of the petitiorLer Nos.2 to 4 to appear u,hen the Court directs. this order dLsl,ensing r'vith their appearance stands vacated automatically.

15. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are permitted to f kr al application seeking to drscharge them beforc the tria,l Conlt. Upon filing such application, the trial Court shall examine thl' same and pass \ 1 appropriate orders, uninfluenced b,v the any of the observations t I I i made by this Court herern

16. .4.ccording1y, this Criminal Pe'ition is partly a-llowed. Miscellaneous r'etitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- G. JYOTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The llAdditional Judicial Frrst class magistrate, at [Mancherial, ltrlancherial

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station wps, Srirampur, Mancherial 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad'

4. One CC to Sri. R Mangulal Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to [t/s. CH. Sravani, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies To, District. (our) ,,\S/SA P"tC, HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 I I ORDER CRLP.No.280A ot 2025 { 15 ;ii'U ZUt L-- o

6.sp r -r+ * (') CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLOVVED P144 eILl \,f