The High Court · 2025

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

2. Bangari Padma @ Kawadi Swathi' Wo Deepak Kumar' Occ Housewife' - ng;il2 v"ri., n-lo e-i-5s0, Hanumannagar, Godavarikhani' Peddapalli District ."Respondenu Defact complainant PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may o"-pLi."o to cail for the records relating to c.c.No.98812120 on the file ionorable 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class at Godavaraikhani and qr1.n ir'. same in so far as the petitioner/Accused is concerned' t.A. NO :, 1 OF 2O21 PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P-Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stateo in ine rvremoianoum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay df all further proceedings in C.C.No.9BB/2020 on the file of Honorable ist Additional Judicial itlagistrata of 1st Class at Godavaraikhani and quash the same in so {ar as the petitioner/Accused is concerned' This Petition coming oh for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petitioin and upon hearing the argumehts of Sri B.Shiva Ram sharma, Advocate for the Petitloner and the sri E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the ResPondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.4530 0F 2021 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 4g2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ,Cr.p.C.,) to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.9gB of 2O2O, on the file ol t Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1"r Class at Godavarikhani, regisrered lor the oflences punishable uncler Sections 498-A ol IPC ar-rd Scoion 4 o[ Dowry prohibition Act r/w. 34 ol IpC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent and rhe rearned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No. 1 -State.

3. Brief facts 01' the case are that the responde nt No.2 / de facto complainant lodged a complaint on l2.ll.2o2o before the police, Gadavarikhani I(T) srating she got married with the petitioner herein on 18.10.2O19 and :rt the time of marriage, cash of Rs.3,O0,O0O/-, haif tula gold, Rs.5O,00O/- cash towards sister-in-law gift and other house hold articles u,ere given. Thereafter, de facto complainan[ went to her in-laws house to tead conjugal life to Vishakapatnam and there she lived l-rappilv for some time. Ever since de facto complainant got pregnant, thc petitioner along with his parents, his brother, sister and brother in-law started harassing her mentally and physically demanding her to get additional dowry of Rs.2O,OOO/- 2 . She further stated that her husband had married her suppressing the lact that he already got married to anothcr woman. On

29.06.2O2O, Lhe de facto complainant is blessed with a son. Though thc same was informed to her husband and in-laws and invited them to 2l.t day ceremony, none of them attended the ceremony. She was also warned that they would not allow her +.o lead conjugal life unless she bring the additional dowry, as demanded by them- Hence, the presen t complaint.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, enquiry was conducted and charge shcet was laid and the same was numbercd as CC.No.988 of 2O20. During the trial 17 witnesses were examined.

5. Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits that the de facto cornplainant suppressing the fact that she got married earlier with one Raj Kumar on 12.08.2O12, rn-arried the petitioner herein and further drawn the attention of this Court to the customary divorce obtaincd by the de faclo complainant/2'ia respondent with her earlier husband, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli. Hence, the marriage which was performed on 18.10.2019 does not have any legal effect. as the customary divorce obtained by the de facto complainant from her earlier husband is not recognised in the eyes of law and Sub-Registrar is not the competent authority to issue thc same. Therefore, the question of trying the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of D.p.Act does not arise. Hence^ ? seeks indulgence of this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the unolficial respondents submits that it is the petitioner herein who has suppressecl the lact the he was already married and subsequently obtained divorce from his 1sr wife. Knowing well that tine de facto complainant f 2na respondent is already married and obtainecl customary divorce liom her first husband, the petitioner married he r on 1g.10.2019. The said divorce was obtained way back in thc year, 2Ol2 and after a lapse of 7 years, it is not proper on the petitioner to say |nat d.e facto complainant had suppressed the said fact. These are the facts to be examined thoroughly by trial Court :rnd decide the case on merits. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is not warranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the petition. t \ 7 . Learned Assistant public prosecu tor taking the same stand as of learned counsel for the unofhcial respondents submits that only after thorough investigation, the police have laid charge sheet and at this stage, interference of this Court is unwarranted. Hence, seeks dismissai of the criminal petition. I

8. Having regar<l to the rival contentions, insolar as the 1"t marriages of the petitioner and the 2,,d respondent are concerned, the 4 trial Court shall verify and decide whether the said marriagcs are recognized in thc eyes of law, if so, whether the offences alleged against the pe titioner under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act r,r,ould attract or not. The said facts would only be elicited by conducting thorough trial. Therefore, without making any observations, as sought by the learned counsel for the pctitioner, the petitioner is permitted to approach the trial Court and raisc all the contentions raised herein by filing discharge appiication. Needless [o mention thtrt as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appcarance of thc petitioner herein is dispensed with. However, he shall appear the belorc the trial Court as and when required. He shall be reprcsented either by himself or through his counsel. In default of the same, the relief granted by this Court stands cancelled.

9. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed o[. Miscellancous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII Sd- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ANT REGISTRAR A I s CTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani. 2. The Station House Officer, Godavarikhani-l Town Police Station, Peddapalli District. Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri B.Shiva Ram Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies NVB/gh j \ ,t'' .lr. 2 2 AUE roz5 i)i-n HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER GRLP.No.4530 ot 2021 THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF