THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 & 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1380 of 2024 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 354, 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC.

2. Heard Parismita Saikai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No.2-de facto complainant is the first wife of petitioner No.1 and thus the allegation of Section 354 IPC would not arise against the petitioner No.1 and that he never beat the respondent No.2-de facto complainant to attract the ingredients of Sections 323 or 324 of IPC. He further submitted that the second marriage of the petitioner No.1 was performed with the petitioner No.2 with the consent of respondent No.2 and that it is only a verbal altercation between the petitioner No.1 and his first wife i.e. respondent No.2 and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution could record the statements of eye-witnesses and LW-5 is the doctor, who issued injury certificate and the said certificate discloses that the de facto complainant sustained injuries in the alleged incident that has occurred. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint and the recitals in the charge sheet point out that the de facto complainant was going along with her sister-in-law to Risala Bazar and when they reached near Axis Bank, she saw her husband with his second wife’s daughter and then she approached him and asked him for some money for daily necessities and then he started arguing with her and behaved indecently with her by pulling her dress in public and beat her with slippers, in the meantime, petitioner No.2 also came there and beat them with hands. Thus, the allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 354, 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC. LW.2 is shown to be an eye-witness and LW 5 is the doctor, who issued the medical certificate. Thus, the veracity of these witnesses and the strength of the medical evidence need to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court provided they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing before the trial court and they shall appear before the trial court as and when their presence is required.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 04, 2025 KTL