This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.820 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, (West and South), Ranga Reddy District relating to offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 420, 417, 498A I.P.C.

Previously, the petitioner filed Criminal PetitionNo.812 of 2001 in this Court for the self same relief and it was withdrawn by the petitioner and the petition was accordingly dismissed by order dated 09.04.2005 by which the petitioner was given liberty to file a fresh petition if he is so advised. After few days thereof, the petitioner came up with the present petition on 09.05.2005 for quashing proceedings in the Criminal case. It is not known for what purpose it was previously withdrawn and on what new grounds the present petition is filed.

It is alleged that the accused cheated the victim woman and her parents by stating that his first wife died after delivering two of his children who are studying by staying in a hostel, even though his first wife by name Sarada is very much alive and living with him at Avanthinagar near Erragadda, and that by making the said false and fraudulent representation, the accused married the victim woman at Yadagirigutta on 09.10.1994, and that the accused collected total amount of Rs.28,000/- from father of the victim woman towards hand loan on the false plea that he was constructing his own house at Borabanda; and that the accused further demanded Rs.20,000/- from him and threatened the victim and her father with dire consequences by showing his licensed revolver and that several times the accused tried to snatch away gold ornaments from the victim’s person by threatening her with dire consequences and that the accused demanded to part with her gold ornaments together with cash of Rs.15,000/- from her parents and that when his additional demand was not fulfilled, the accused threatened the victim and her father by saying that he would wipe out evidence of his marriage with the victim at Yadagirigutta in a Choultry by destroying all photographs and negatives and would walk out of their house. The petitioner/ accused was then working as Sub Inspector of Police in Intelligence Wing of the Police Department at Hyderabad. Truth or otherwise of all allegations in the charge sheet as well as in First Information Report have to be adjudged by the trial Court after both the parties leading their oral and documentary evidence during trial before the lower court.

It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Section 198(1) proviso (c ) of Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance of the case relating to offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 I.P.C. Proviso (c ) to Section 198(1) of Cr.P.C as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows:-

“Provided that ………. (c) Where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under (Section 494 or Section 495) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father’s or mother’s brother or sister (or with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption)”.

But, Division Bench of this Court in Mavuri Rani Veerabhadramma v. State of A.P, ( 2007(1) A.L.D 13 (AP)) took note of the fact that though offence punishable under Section 494 I.P.C as amended in the state of Andhra Pradesh is made cognizable, there is no corresponding amendment to Section 198 Cr.P.C., and that though investigating agency is entitled to investigate, the Magistrate is precluded from taking cognizance of the said offence on report filed by the police. The Division Bench answered the reference with the following conclusions:-

1. If a complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. before a Magistrate, he may take cognizance of the offence or postpone the issue of process either by making enquiry into th