Learned counsel for the v. Sivagamir, wherein the Court h,rs relied upon in Kanwal Ram Vs. H.p Admnz, in

2. Smt. Teppa Madhavi alias Gulla-Parvathi, W/o. Teppa Srinu, Aged about 31 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H-No. Thalpunoor Village Revally Mandal now at Uyyalawada Village, Nagarkurnool District. ...RESPONDENT/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 proceedings in C.C. No. 1184 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum- Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, at Wanaparthy, U/s 494, 109 R/w 34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.pc. which is pending against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. '1 to 7. - l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 OF BNSS praying that n the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. he High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C. No. 1184 of 2 )22 on the file oT the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magist';,e Of First Class, at Wanaparthy, Uls.494, 109 R/w 34 IPC and 15'6(3) Crpc pending against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 7 including appearance of tl,: petitioners/ Accused No. 1 to 7 pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusinr, :he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumen"-. of Ms NALACHERU AISHWARYA ,Advocate for the Petitioners and SF' JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, the Additional Fublic Prosecutor for the lr:spondent No.'1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.8205 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1184 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, registered for the offences under Sections 494, 109 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short "lPC").

2. Heard the submissions of Ms. Nallacheru Aishwarya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that there are bald and vague allegations against the petitioners herein and that mere allegation alone is not sufficient to make out an offence under Section 494 of the lPC. She further submitted that all the accused herein cannot abet the second marriage of the petitioner No.'l and thus, there is no truth in the said allegations. She therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners -E\ "--I l 2

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor Iras submitted that initially the complaint was filed against accused Nlos.1 to 16 and during the course of investigation, the porice cour ..ind that there is no case against accused No.g to 16 and there jore, their names were deleted, but involvement of accused Nos l to 7 is made out during the course of investigation that they have <nowledge about the first marriage of the petitioner No.'l wilrr the de-facto complainant. Hence, Section 109 of the IPC gets attracted against these petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss ..,_: petition 5 Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon S. Nagalingam Vs. Sivagamir, wherein the Court h,rs relied upon in Kanwal Ram Vs. H.p Admnz, in which case the. tiupreme Court has held that, in a bigamy case, the second n lrriage is to be proved and the essential ceremony required for ;r valid marriage should have been performed. rt was herd that me e admission on the part of the accused may not be sufficient. rn t e said case the second marriage of the accused was contended r,r be not a varid marriage by taking a plea that an important ceremc t\/ of ,saptapadi, '1uoor;zscc+rt 2 arn rooo y e r,r -3 was not performed. lt was observed by the Supreme Court that 'saptapadi' is held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in case where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them, that was an essential ceremony. ln the instant case, the appellant had no such case that saptapadi was an essential ceremony for a valid marriage as per the personal law and therefore, it was proved that the appellant had committed the offence of Bigamy as it was performed during the subsistance of earlier marriage. Hence, the said case law does not aid the case of the petitioner herein

7. The petitioner counsel has further relied upon S. Nitheen and Others ys. Stafe of Kerala and Another, in the said case, the presence of the petitioners during the second marriage was not established and it was further observed that those petitioners who were witnesses to the second marriage had no knowledge about the first marriage. No evidence was produced to show that the witnesses who have attended the second marriage had knowledge about the first marriage. Thus, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed, but the facts differ with the present case -_-_+!!-'nGF'cE'F'-' I ,l i l

8. ln the present case, the petitioners are a../are about the first marriage, it is also disclosed from the recitals r:f the charge sheet that the temple authorities themselves have refr sed to perform the second marriage when the petitioners herein ha,"c. approached it on learning that it is a second marriage, that me;, ns petitioners had knowledge about the first marriage. Therefore, Irr: said case law is also not applicable to the case on hand. 9 The petitioner counsel further relied upon Ethanwar Lal Jaat Vs. Sfafe of Rajashtan and Anothef, wherein he Rajasthan High Court has held that mere fact of a man and a wo-ran living together as husband and wife would not be considered zr_. an offence under Section 494 lPC, if they have not performed ,, valid marriage in accordance with law. ln the present case, it s alleged that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got married during the ;r.rbsistence of first marriage of petitioner No.1 with the de-fact., complainant. By placing reliance on this judgment, the contenti:,r of the petitioner counsel is that, there is absolutely no rer;rrd to show any performance of second marriage between acc, t:jed Nos.1 and 2 and there are no details as to show whether irc,lused Nos.3 to 7 have witnessed the marriage. Though the petitioner counsel '2024(2)R w t617 - contends that there is no evidence to show the performance of second marriage, the evidentiary part falls for consideration during the course of trial.

10. The recitals of the charge sheet prima-facie point out that the petitioners herein had knowledge about the first marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the de-facto complainant. However, they proceeded to perform the marriage of petitioner No.j with the petitioner No.2 in a Temple and that the Temple authorities have refused to perform the marriage as they gained knowledge that it is going to be a second marriage, but still the petitioners herein have got the marriage performed between the petitioner Nos..l and 2. I I The petitioners No.3 to 7 are none other than the parents and relatives of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The charge sheet reveals the list of witnesses which include the village elders and also neighbouring witnesses. The veracity in the statements of these witnesses and also truth in the arregations fail for adjudication during the course of trial, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same . 11 ln the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court, unless 6 ..1 their presence is specifically required by the tri,,,l Court during the course of trial, provided that they shall be rerrresented by their counsel on every date of hearing lVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed I //TRUE COPY// \ SD/- N SRIHARI D.EPUTY REGISTRAR ,/ \ \r SECTION OFFICER

1. The Princrpal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistr rte Of First Class, at Wana parthy.

2. The Station House Officer, Revally Police Station, W;'naparthy. 3 One CC to SRI NALACHERU AISHWARYA Advocate OPUCI 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies To, GR . . -:':*::*:;] HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 ORDER CRLP.No.8205 ot 2025 (. \ \ I,:'_1,. ,t, .,r 1 ull 2Ozl .r/ ;,. DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITI()N t0 lal \ &r.