IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9387 OF 2022 DATE: 18-03-2026 Between:

S. Pramod Reddy @ Sami Reddy and three others ...Petitioners And The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, D.D., Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.9825 of 2021 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section

494 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri K. Dayakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Notice sent to respondent No.2 returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Hence, notice is deemed to be served on respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are being harassed with a false complaint that is filed by the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the averments in the complaint itself are not tenable in the eye of law, as the de facto complainant and petitioner No.1 got divorced by virtue of decree of divorce passed by the Court of Queens Bench, Medicine Hat, in the Province of Alberta, on 06.02.2017. Thus, by virtue of the said divorce, there is no marital relationship existing between the de facto complainant and petitioner No.1 and hence, the de facto complainant cannot make any allegation of Section 494 I.P.C. against petitioner No.1. He further submitted that the complaint is also bad and unsustainable, as it is filed before the police and not before the concerned Magistrate and that the bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C. renders the complaint legally unsustainable. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as far as the contents of the complaint are concerned, the police have investigated and filed charge sheet to the effect that petitioner No.1 has married for the second time during the subsistence of the first marriage with the de facto complainant.

He, therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders in the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet point out that petitioner No.1 got married to the de facto complainant on 11.08.2012 as per Hindu Customs and that on an earlier occasion, the de facto complainant filed a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.129 of 2016 of Women Police Station, CCS, for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and on completion of investigation, cognizance was taken vide C.C.No.126 of 2017 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, which is pending. It is alleged that accused No.1 left to Canada in the year 2014 and has not returned to India till date and that he has performed second marriage without giving divorce to the de facto complainant.

8. As seen from the record, charge sheet is filed only against petitioner No.1-accused No.1. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not charge-sheeted. The contention of the petitioners’ counsel is two folds, firstly, with regard to the divorce obtained by petitioner No.1 from the Court at Canada and the second ground is with regard to maintainability of the complaint, as it is filed before the police and not before the Court. As far as the first contention is concerned, a copy of the said decree of divorce is filed by the petitioners. Nothing is stated with regard to the said divorce in the complaint or in the charge sheet. Unless respondent No.2 is confronted with the Certificate of Divorce, nothing can be expressed as against the same. For the time being, this Court cannot venture into the validity of the document in the present case. Howev