Betweeen:

1. Telugu Kukkala Anil Kumar,

S/o. Late Venkatramulu

... petitioner

And

1. The State of Telangana,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana

at Hyderabad, through SHO W.P.S.

Warangal City, Warangal Urban District

and one other.

...respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“… pleased to quash the proceeding in

C.C.No.1569 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble III

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Hanamkonda for the offences U/s 494 of IPC

and pass...”

Heard Mr. P.Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner/accused, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and Mr. P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1569 of 2024 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Hanamkonda.

On the basis of complaint, an FIR was registered bearing No.722 of 2023, dated 10.11.2023 under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short ‘IPC’).

In the complaint, it is averred that respondent No.2 was married to accused/petitioner on 23.02.2017, and after two years, accused secured a job as Junior Accountant in TSSPDCL. That accused/petitioner started harassing respondent No.2 physically and mentally accusing that she did not get dowry, not good looking that he would marry someone. That petitioner’s brother-in-law and sister were also harassing her. That a Crime No.130 of 2019 under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Act, 1961, was lodged in the Women Police Station against petitioner, petitioner's sister and brother-in-law. It is also averred that without her knowledge and permission, the accused married one Kota Sri Laxmi on 28.03.2023 and this fact was told to her by her advocate who has shown the marriage photos and marriage certificate of accused. Hence, the complaint.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for accused/petitioner that F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 preferred on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court-Cum Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, was allowed on 13.03.2021 granting a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2, that it is an ex-parte decree. It is further submitted that I.A.No.446 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 was filed seeking to set aside the decree of divorce along with a delay petition and the said petition stood dismissed on 08.12.2023. It is also submitted that against the order in delay petition a Civil Revision Petition bearing CRP No.407 of 2024 was filed, that a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the CRP by setting aside I.A.No.446 of 2023 in F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019.

It is pointed out that in view of the orders in C.R.P.No.407 of 2024, F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019 was restored to the file of the Court for granting an opportunity to respondent No.2 to present her case.

It is submitted that Section 494 of IPC, does not get attracted in the present facts of the case, as the petitioner/accused got married after two (2) years from the date of decree of divorce and that the marriage is a registered marriage and is valid according to law.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State submitted that investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. That petitioner/accused married during the life time of respondent No.2 and no interference is necessitated. That, this Court by an order in CRP directed to dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019, as expeditiously as possible.

It is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 that accused/petitioner could not have married for the second time during the subsistence of the first marriage. That the CRP filed was allowed and an opportunity is given to contest the proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.902 of 2019. That the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of IPC is attrac