THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.3309 of 2016

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:- “to issue a writ of Certiorari by calling the records declaring the order dated 16.09.2015 in C.C.Sr.No.5643 of 2015 passed by the Honourable XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, NampaIly, Hyderabad, under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C as arbitrary, without reasons, illegall, unconstitutional and consequently quash the FIR No.610 of 2015 on the file of the Women Police Station, C.C.S, Hyderabad, i.e., 2^nd respondent police.”

2. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 22.09.2025, there was no representation for respondent No.3. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted to 14.10.2025. On 14.10.2025 also there was no representation for respondent No.3. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 16.10.2025. Today also there is no representation for respondent No.3, either in physical mode or virtual mode. Inspite of giving reasonable opportunity, respondent No.3 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

3. Heard Ms.Deepthi Anand, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3, who is none other than the father of LW.4, filed a private complaint before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and others. The learned Magistrate, without assigning any reasons, simply referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. through a docket order dated 16.09.2015 and the same is contrary to law. She further submitted that there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 494 of the IPC. The petitioner was unaware of the subsisting marriage between accused No.1 and LW.4. Suppressing the fact of his earlier marriage, accused No.1 performed a marriage with the petitioner/accused No.5 on 16.02.2011. She further submitted that cognizance can only be taken on a private complaint filed under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., as there is a bar under Section 198 of the Cr.P.C.”As soon as the petitioner came to know about the existing marriage between accused No.1 and LW.4, the petitioner approached the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, seeking dissolution of marriage between herself and accused No.1. The said Court granted a decree of divorce on 24.11.2014, terminating the marriage between the petitioner and accused No.1.

5. She further submitted that Section 494 of the IPC is not attracted against the petitioner, as she was not aware of any existing marriage at the time of her marriage to accused No.1. She further submitted that cognizance can only be taken on a private complaint filed under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., as there is a bar under Section 198 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

6. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.11197 of 2022, dated

14.03.2023.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that accused No.1, while his earlier marriage with LW.4 was subsisting, had married the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings in Crime No. 610 of 2015 at this stage.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the record, it reveals that respondent No.3, who is none other than the father of LW.4 and father-in-law of accused No.1, filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others. The petit