ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1093 of 2019, which is pending before the Court of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Medchal District.

2. Heard Sri Khaja Inayatullah, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing Respondent No.1.

3. Despite of service of notice, Respondent No.2 failed to represent.

4. The matrix of the case, as per the contents of the charge sheet, is that the petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner Nos.2 & 3. The 2nd respondent (hereinafter be referred as the defacto complainant) and the 1st petitioner/Accused No.1 got acquainted with each other and became close. Petitioner No.1 expressed his desire to marry the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant accepted the proposal made. The 1st petitioner had put Sindur over the forehead of the defacto complainant and thereafter, they started leading conjugal life. They continued their relationship for about five years. However, the 1st petitioner got engaged with another lady by name Revathi. On coming to know about the said fact, the defacto complainant went to the house of the 1st petitioner and questioned him as to how his engagement took place with another girl. On that, the 1st petitioner got wild and beat the defacto complainant and went into his house. When the defacto complainant asked the petitioner to come out of his house and settle the issue, petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 came out and abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened her.

5. Stating that the petitioners have not committed any offences, whatsoever, more so the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 & 509 IPC, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner never married the defacto complainant and therefore, the ingredients of Section 498A IPC does not attract to the case facts. Learned counsel also submits that none of the petitioners either attacked or abused the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant bore grudge and foisted a false case against the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court seeking quash of proceedings.

6. The submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the 1st petitioner lead marital life with the defacto complainant secretly and when the defacto complainant finally came to know that the 1st petitioner would be getting wedded with another woman, she approached his house and questioned him. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the 1st petitioner and the other petitioners, who are the parents of 1st petitioner, attacked the defacto complainant at that time and therefore, she gave complaint to police for getting justice.

7. When the material that is brought on record, including the charge sheet and the statements of witnesses recorded by Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., are looked into, no where there is a clear mention about the performance of necessary rituals that are required for a valid marriage. Even as per the version of the defacto complainant, by putting Sindur over her forehead, the 1st petitioner started leading conjugal life with her. Both of them did not inform the matter to their elders within the said period of five years during which they lead conjugal life. Even the defacto complainant did not state that she gave information at least to her parents or to her elders. That apart, there is no mention that they visited any of the religious places or any place jointly. All these circumstances goes to show that they were leading secret life basing on their own agreement.

8. Thus, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of Section 498A IPC cannot be applied to the case facts. However, by the statement of the defacto complainant and also by the statement of one of the eye witnesses by name Harathi Chatterjee (LW2)