1. Jana Robert clive v. '1. The State of Telangana

2 Smt. Jana Prema, Wo. Jan^a Robert Clive, Aged about 35 years, Occ House wife, Present Rio Plot No. 84, Road No.15, RaghavenOra itagJi, Gayath rinaga r, J iilelaguda, Ralg{f e{Oy District, N/o kottru r"u Viilage, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 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 in cc. No. 2292t2022 on the file of v Addt. Metropolitan Magjstrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminil petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners 1 to 3 in connection with cc. No. 2292 of 2022 on-the file of V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, pending disposar of the criminal petition. "' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing re Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PRAKASHCHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate for the petitioner anrr smt. s. Madhavi, learned Assistant Pubric Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondr:nt No.1, and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6767 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C No 2292 of 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional lVletropolitan IVlagistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC'). 02 Heard Sri Prakash Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos l to 3 and Smt.S.tvladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. No representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent No 2 Perused the record

03.1. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that on

21.05.2006 the complainant got first marriage with one Sonti Srinivas and she blessed with a daughter by name Sindusri on 10-11-2010. She came to know that her husband Sonti Srinivas developed illegal intimacy with other Iadies. For which, there were some disputes arose between them and leaved her husband and stayed at her parental house along 2 with her daughter situated at Kothur village, Kanrlukur tVlandal, '.1 Rangareddy District.

03.2 While she was staying with her first rusband, she got friendship with the petitioner-accused No.1 ruho was her neighbor. They developed love and got married on 26.02.2015 at Velankini Church in presence of his brother.in_law Vinay Kumar and his wife, her daughter Kum.Sindhus-i as per the Christian rites and customs

03.3. After marriage, she joined with her husband in conjugal life and stayed in different places in renied rooms at Uppal and Chennai, thereafter they again came to Hyderabad and stayed in a rented room at Gayathrinagar, Jillelguda Hyderabad from 2017 to August 2021 . Afler nrarriage, he looked after her well for some days, later the a<:cused No.1 started harassing her mentally and physically and tcrced her to give divorce to her first husband.

03.4. Due to his harassment, she aske I her first husband for mutual divorce, but he did not accept to give divorce. For which, the petitioner_accused No.1 in,:reased his harassment and picked up quarrel with her several times and 3 beat her frequently. One day he picked up quarrel with her and left from the house without intimation. Since then, she do not know the whereabouts of the petitioners-accused No.1 .

03.5, On which, she questioned her in-laws i.e. the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 about the petitioner-accused No l, but they abused her in filthy language and advised her to go and join with her first husband. They completely supported the petitioner-accused No.1 in harassing her. Thus, she requested for necessary action against the petitioners-accused

04. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner- accused No.2 is the mother, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the fatherof the accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 62 and 72 years, respectively. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 never interfered in the matrimonial issues of the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners_ accused Nos.1 to 3. The respondent No.2 concealed her first marriage and married the petitioner-accused No.1. Later on, the petitioner-accused No.1 came to know about the first ! 4 marriage of the respondent No.2 and sulfered mental depression. The contents of the complaint or chrarge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offence under Section 498-4 of IPC. Hence, he prayecr to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos 1 to 3

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come,, out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and praved to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the respondent No.2 married lhe petitioner- accused No 1 on 26.02.2015 during the subsistence of her first marriage which was solemnized on 21 .05.2006 ,,vith one Sonti Srinivas. lt is to be noted here that Section 498-4 of IPC specifically addresses 'cruelty' within a legally 'ecognized or legitimate marriage. That nreans, a woman w'ho is not the legally recognized wife cannot accuse her husband or her relatives of 'cruelty' under Section 498-4 of IPC 5

07. The sanctity of Section 498-4 of IPC is to protect a woman from cruelty inflicted by her husband or his relatives in the context of a 'legitimate marriage'. To initiate criminal proceedings under Section 498-4 of lPC, there must be a clear prima facie case established against the husband or his relatives, and the complaints should not be frivolous or malicious.

08. lt is crystal clearly evident from the material placed on record that the present complaint was filed against the 'second husband' including his mother and father. A mere glance at the contents of the charge sheet shows that except stating that there was a physical and mental harassment caused by the accused, there are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances with regard to harassment caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. Even though, if the allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety does not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case 6 against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3, who are not forming .l the part of legitimate marriage

09. From the perusal of Section 498-4 of lPC, it is explicit that to attract the ingredients of this Secttcn, a woman must be subjected to cr:uelty by her husband o his relative. However, as per Section 5 of the Hindu lVlarria,]e Act, for a valid marriage, neither party to the marriage strould have a living spouse at the time of marriage, meaning t'rat if the first husband is alive, marriage with another man is nlt valid. The relationship between such a man and womarr cannot be considered as'husband and wife' relationship.

10. Here, it is an admitted fact that thi: respondent No.2 married the petitioner-accused No.1 during .he lifetime of her first husband i.e. during subsistence of her f irst marriage, which is void under law. Therefore, the present criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 498-4 ,lf IPC are not maintainable against such a husband and his rerlatives at the instance of person who is not 'legally wedded wife' and the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 cannot be draggerl into criminal prosecution in the absence of 'legitimate marriage,' between the resporrdent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.1 l 7 11 ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 3 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law, therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable to be quashed

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 to 3 in C C.No.2292 of 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional lVletropolitan I\Iagistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed /ffRUE COPY// To,

1. The V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cybera 2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar WPS Commissionerate. SD/. N.SRIHARI \ EPUTY R SECTION OFFICER , L.B. Nagar. ce Station, Rachakonda

3. One CC to Sri. Prakash Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI swt/PSL

5. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED: 3010412025 ORDER CRLP.No.6767 ot 2022 ylE S r,4;" 4 u3( o L) 11Juil M ,l i c i5o;16 a'-l !t CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED q. @Rqe[ k. €