Dismissed

Nalmothu Prabhakarrao, v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Feb 2012CRLP/8808/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed criminal petitions seeking quashal of proceedings for bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The trial court must determine if the second respondent knew of the first marriage. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were invoked only to preserve justice, rejecting the petitioners' claim of insufficient particulars in the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions dismissed; trial court directed to dispose of C.C.No.1084 of 2008 expeditiously.

Nalmothu Prabhakarrao, Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition Nos.8808 & 8812 of 2008

¶3

(Dated : 09-02-2012)

¶4

Between:

¶5

Nalmothu Prabhakar Rao (Petitioner in Crl.P.No.8808 of 2008)

¶6

N.Vijayalakshmi (Petitioner in Crl.P.No.8812 of 2008)

¶7

….Petitioners

¶8

A n d 1) State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another 2) M.Venkata Kishore R/o Hyderabad

¶9

Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Criminal Petition Nos.8808 & 8812 of 2008

¶12

COMMON ORDER:

¶13

These two criminal petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.1084 of 2008 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad to quash the proceeding therein.

¶14

2. The 2^nd respondent herein filed a report before the Station House Officer, Chandanagar P.S alleging inter alia that he married Smt. N.Vijayalakshmi (petitioner in Crl.P.No.8812 of 2008) on 19.10.2000. During subsistence of his marriage, she entered into contact with Nallamothu Prabhakar Rao (Petitioner in Crl.P.No.8808 of 2008) and married him in the year 2002. It is also stated in the report that Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi suppressed of her first marriage with Prabhakar Rao and made him believe that she was unmarried as on 19-10-2000 and thereby, he has been deceived. With these two accusations, he presented a report. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.208 of 2008 came to be registered. After due investigation, the Station House Officer, Chandanagar P.S., filed charge sheet before IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.1084 2008. Hence, these two criminal petitions by A-1 and A-2 to quash the proceedings therein.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2

¶16

and Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant knew well of the first marriage of A-1 with Prabhakar Rao much prior to 19-10-2010. The learned counsel took me to the pleadings of the parties in O.P.No.154 of 2001 and also the deposition of M.Ramakoteshwar Rao recorded in O.P.No.154 of 2001. It is also contended by the learned counsel that no specific date on which A-1 and A-2 got married has been stated in the report presented by the 2^nd respondent or the Investigating Officer mentioned the date of marriage in the charge sheet. In the absence of such particulars, no offence can be said to have been made out under Section 494 IPC.

¶18

5. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent- de facto complainant submits that the pleadings referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be adverted to in a quash petition as they are required to be considered by the trial Court. Learned senior counsel further contends that in the charge sheet, it is stated that A-1 and A-2 lived together and out of their conjugal life, A-1 gave birth to three children.

¶19

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the parties. The Supreme Court while dealing with the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C in State Of Orissa vs Saroj Kumar Saho o^[1] , observed that Section 482 Cr.P.C envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely,

¶20

(i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.,

¶21

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

¶22

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in the absence of any specific provisions of the statute.

¶23

7. Coming back to the facts of the case on hand, the question whether the de facto complainant had knowledge of the first marriage of Smt. N.Vijayalaxmi with the Prabhakar Rao as on 19-10-2000 is required to be decided by the trial Court. It is suffice to say that the investigation established that Smt. N.Vijayalakshmi lived with A-2 during the subsistence of her marriage with the de facto complainant and gave birth to three children. Such is the material gathered during investigation; it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1084 of 2008 in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶24

8. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of C.C.No.1084 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

Dt.09-02-2012 RAR

¶26

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶27

[1] 2005(13) SCC 540

Nalmothu Prabhakarrao, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalmothu Prabhakarrao, v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Noor, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Yedulla Ramadevi Vs The State ofAP., Rep.byits

Bommalal KIamalamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chakali Ramulu Vs The State of Ap., through

Perugu Parvathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sikhakolli Venkata Rama Bhaskar Rao , Ravi Vs The State