1 Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 in C.C.No.147 of 2010 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur have filed these two Criminal Petitions seeking to quash the proceedings against them.

2. Since both the criminal petitions arise out of the same calendar case, I am inclined to dispose of these petitions by this common order.

3. The factual background leading to filing of these two petitions is, briefly, as follows:

4. Eesa Agnes (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) married A.1 against the will and wish of her parents. She died on 10.08.2008. On 16.11.2008 the mother of the deceased by name Smt. Kattepogu Indira Devi (hereinafter referred to as the de-facto complainant) lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Police Station, alleging that A.1 married A.2 on 04.07.2008 during the subsistence of valid marriage of A.1 with the deceased. It is further alleged that on 14.10.2008, A.1 obtained second marriage certificate with an intention to screen away the evidence in relation to the marriage of A1 with A2 performed on 04.07.2008. It is further alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for additional dowry. Thereupon, the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Town Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.271 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 420 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners under 468, 201, 498-A, 494 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mangalagiri, after careful scrutiny of the material available on record, has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 468, 201 and 420 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioners and numbered the charge sheet as C.C.No.147 of 2010. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the VII Additional Sessions Judge Court (FTC), Guntur as per the orders of the District Court, Guntur.

5. The predominant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Chalapati Rao, is two fold viz., 1) The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners under Sections 494 and 498-A of IPC in violation of Section 198 Cr.P.C. in general and Section 198 (1) (c) in particular, 2) the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners under Sections 494 and 498-A of IPC.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant Sri B. Nalin Kumar submitted that the trail Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners in view the A.P. State Amendment to Section 494 I.P.C. He further submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet are prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioners.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings, at this stage, viewed from the factual and legal angles. He further submitted that in view of availability of alternative remedy, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can quash the proceedings. In support of first contention, he has drawn my attention to the following decisions:

i. Suraj Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P., (2006 Cri. L. J. 3323 (1)) wherein the Honble apex Court held as under:

9. I have gone through all those statements. There is none of the witnesses who could say that marriage with Smt. Meena Jaiswal was performed in his presence and any ritual as provided in the Hindu Law for a valid marriage, had taken place. Consequently, by the evidence collected by the investigating officer the second marriage is not proved nor there is even a prima facie evidence regarding the said marriage.

10. Consequently, the application is li