THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1213 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2241 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the material on record.

3. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the elder and younger brothers of accused No.1. According to the complaint, the allegation against the petitioners is that acting on their words accused No.1 suspected the character of de facto complainant and subjected her to physical and mental harassment. Thereafter, accused No.1 married accused No.6. In that regard, when a panchayat was conducted in the presence of elders, all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have warned the de facto complainant, demanded her to give divorce to accused No.1 and physically assaulted her by pushing and beating her with hands.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the matrimonial disputes between her and accused No.1. The present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant after ten years of her marriage with accused No.1. The reason for such delay in lodging the complaint remained unexplained. The accused and the de facto complainant have entered into a mutual agreement dated 13.11.2020, however, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant on 24.09.2022 i.e., nearly after two years. The petitioners herein are staying away from the de facto complainant and accused No.1. Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners.

Thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the de facto complainant after her marriage with accused No.1 and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.

Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 494 of IPC and Section 198 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder:

494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—

Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (Exception)— This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage