The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by lts Public Prosecutor, High Court At Hyderabad.

2. Kunisheety Keerthi, Wo Shiva Durga Prasad, Aged 29 years, Rio H No 21- 51, Plot No.270, Ambedkar Colony, Tellapur' ...Respondents/Defacto Complai nant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records relating to c.c.No.73312O18 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial 1st class Magistrate at Sangareddy and quash the same in so far as the petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 arc concerned. l.A. NO: 1 1 Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in c.c.No.733/2018 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial 1st class Magistrate at Sangareddy and quash the same in so far as the petitioners/Accused No.2 to 4 are concerned. TITI :2625 0F 202 Between PVNSS Rao, S/o Venkateswar Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ: CISF,R/o H No.4-17, Old Nimmakuru, Pamarru, Krishna District. . . . Petitioner/Accused AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court At Hyderabad.

2. Kunisheety Keerthi, Wo Shiva Durga Prasad 51, Plot No.270, Occ: House wife, Ambedkar , Aged 29 years, R/o H.No.21- Colony, Tellapur. ...Respondents/Defacto Complai nant Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No.73312O18 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial 1st class Magistrate at Sangareddy and quash the same in so far as the petitioner/Accuied is concerned. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.N.o.73312018 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial 1st class Magistrate at Sangareddy and quash the same in so far as the petitioner/Accused is concerned. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing.the arguments of Sri N.Mahesh, representing Sri B Shiva Ram Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioners in Batch Cases and Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in Batch case and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION Nos .259t 2625 0F 1 criminal petition No.2591 of 2o2L is filed under section 482 of cr.P.c. seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in c.c.No.733 of 2olg on the file of the learned Judicial First class Magistrate, Sangareddv (for short, "the trial court") for the offences under sections 4L7, 420 and 494 of I.P.C. 2- criminal Petition No.2625 of 2021 is filed under Section 482 of cr.P.c. seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioner/accused No.1 in c.c.No.733 of 2org before the triar court for the offences under sections 4lr, 42o and 494 of I.p.c.

3. Heard Mr.N.Mahesh, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Shiva Ram sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 -State. 4- The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 married one person namely Shiva Durga prasad; that she was living away from him, along with her parents; that during her stay r,vith her \ ) parents, she got acquainted with accused No.1 and married him' Therea-fter, she came to know that accused No.l was trying to marry accused No.4 and tried to stop him; despite her effort, accused. No.1 married accused No.4 in the presence of accused Nos.2 and 3 by abusing her and stating that he hails from the Police Department. Basing on the said facts, the present crime is registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 is not valid in the eye of law as respondent No.2 had already married another person and the said marriage is still subsisting. Therefore, the offence as alleged under Section 494 of I.P.C- does not get attracted in the case on hand. He further states that respondent- Police have arrayed accused Nos.2 to 4 in the present complaint, in a mechanical manner, without conducting proper investigation, only to harass the petitioners'

6. He states that the present complaint is liled by respondent No.2 only for the sake of extorting money from the petitioners herein; that r,vithout establishing the factum of valid marriage between respondent No.2 and accursed No.1, no prima facie case is purported to have been established against the accused \ t : I i I I I J I I t I \ \ -) persons for the alleged offences. Therefore, he seeks to allolv the Criminal Petition.

7. opposing the sarne, learned Assistant public prosecutor contends that upon conducting thorough investigation respondent-Police have laid charge sheet against petitioners. Therefore, he states that indulgence of this court, at this stage, is not warranted and seeks to dismiss the crimina_l petition. 8- Having regard to the submissions of both the rearned counsel and upon perusing the materiar availabre on record, this court without going into the merits or demerits of the case, is inclined to direct the petitioners/accused Nos: r to 4 to file an application seeking to discharge them before the trial court. Upon filing such application, the trial court is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per law. 7 ' Accordingly, these criminal petitions are disposed of. However, as sought for by the rearned counsel for the petitioners, the appearance of the petitioners/accused No. r to 4 is dispensed with in c.c-No.733 of 2org before the triar court when represented by their counsel on record .subject to filing an affidavit pv the petitioners stating that in their absence, the proceedings conducted by their counsel will not be disputed by I+ them in any maflner. However, the petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate as and when their presence is required. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear r'vhen the Court directs, this order dispensing r,vith their appearance stands vacated automaticallY. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /i / //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga Reddy 2. The Station House Officer, RC Puram, Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI B SHIVA RAIU SHARIVIA, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies / To, ABK/psl s/ HIGH COURT DATED: 0710812025 a COMMON ORDER CRLP Nos: 2591 and 2625 OF 2021 'i iit ( l. -) -) 1B Li[ ?ln DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS L 0"