Allowed

Smt Bandla Anantha Lakshmi v. The Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC10 Jan 2023CRLP/5016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana quashed criminal proceedings for bigamy, cheating, and intimidation against petitioners, holding that without proof of the first husband's survival or the subsisting nature of the prior marriage, the offence under Section 494 IPC could not be established.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.6995 of 2018 were quashed.

Smt Bandla Anantha Lakshmi Vs The Public Prosecutor — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IMONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO; 5016 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Bandla Anantha Lakshmi, Wo Venkat Rao, age: 50 years, Occ: Business, Fl/o Flat No.401, Navya Residency, Veeraredd! Colony, Nacharam, Uppal(M), Medchal (D)

¶9

Bandla Srikanth, S/o Venkat Rao, Age.28 years, Occ.Nill, Ri./o Flat No.4O1, Navya Residency, Veerareddy Colony, Nacharam, Uppal(M), Medchal (D)

¶10

Gadipudi Srhivas Rao, S/o G Chnna Kotaiah, Age.49 years, Occ. private Employee, _Rt/o. Jawahar Nagar, beside ZpHS HTgh Sihool, Markapuram, Praksham District.

¶11

Gadipudi Ramakrishna, S/o G Chnna Kotaiah, Age.47 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.5-3-319/6/1 , Road No.-6, Venkatarao Nagai Colony, Near Hindu 9[qr]"nu^{Vatika , Kukatpally, Tirumatagiri,KukaTpally, Hyt'erabad,} T.S_ 500072.

¶12

...PETITIONERYACCUSED NO. 1 to 4

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The Publig Prosecutor, Representing the State of Telangana, The Station House Officer, Nacharam.

¶15

2 Vellanki Srinivas Rao, S/o V. Narasimha Raq Ryo Flat No.233, 2nd floor, Block-B, Occ.Business, Laxmi Complex, Pream Nagar, Erragadda-s0O01 B.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Respondents^.l to 4 in C.C.No.6995 of 2018, DL.20-11-2018 on the fite of the Hon,ble tV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Court, R.R.Dist, at L B Nagar.

¶18

I,A. N O:'l oF 2021

¶19

Petition un( er Section. 4g2 of Cr p.C praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the Mem rrandum,. of Grounds of Cri,iin ji p"titior, the High Court may be pleased to st ry of a' further pro""Jing;" i"( rudin! irppearance of the Petitoners/Accuse( 1 ro q.in c c.Nrotsgi"r')die"b, 20- 1-2o1Bon the fire of the Hon'ble tV A,dt Metropotitan frrfrllti"tl"-'C""rn, o.f .Dist, at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal ot the Criminal petition_"

¶20

This^petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tne l\lemorandum of Grounds of crimin: r petition and upon hearing the argum€nts of M/s S. RoJA RAMANT, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Addition.rr purric prosecutor behatf of fl e Respondent No.l and none appeared for the Respondent l,lGrr".

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.5O16 OF 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is liled to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 in C.C.No.6995 of 2018, dated 2O.ll.2OIA on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, UeacnatMalkajgiri at L.B.Nagar.

¶25

The 2"d respondent filed a complaint stating that he was a divorcee and in the year 20 16 gave marriage proposal notification in Andhra Jyothi newspaper in Talambralu Column. The 1"t petitioner/Al herein made a phone call and informed that 20 years back her marriage was performed in a village and it was dissolved before the elders and wanted to get married to the 2"d respondent. On 16.01.2017, the 2"d respondent went to Al's premises and talked to her in the presence of 2"d and 3.d petitioners, who are son and cousin. The marriage was performed in a temple in the evening hours and signatures of witnesses were also obtained in the receipt book issued by the temple. On 15.O2.2OI7, tll,e 2nd respondent shifted to Hyderabad and opened A5rurvedic clinic. The petitioners 2 to 4 allegedly threatened the

¶26

¶27

2,,d respondent to leave Hyderabad and be:rt hir:1. On enquiry, he came to know that Al was not divorced u,ith ite lirst husband ' and all the p:titioners have deliberatelt r:or r::ealed the fact Aggrieved by th-- acts of these petitioners, crimiral crtmplaint was fiied, which wa; investigated by the police. Durirrg 1.he course of investigation, t ee divorce orders of the 2nd 'esprtndent were collected and also proof of marriage with 2nd responclent and Al. Having conclud:d investigation, charge sheet ryas filed for the offence under ,iections 42O and 494 of IPC against A1 and Sections 42O anl 506 of IPC against A2 to A4.

¶28

Learned cornsel appearing for the petitione:s would submit that fa-lse comg laint was hled against petitior ers by the 2"d respondent before the Human Rights Commissior.. There are also money disputes ,lue to which a case for the offenc e under Section I 38 of the Ne1 ptiable Instruments Act is pr r: dirrg between parties. In fact due to the harassment of the 2nd respondent A1 suffered. He fu ther submits that the husband of the l"t petitioner did nct llle any complaint regarcling ttre alleged 2,,a marriage, for which reason, complaint cannot be rrraintained for the offence under Section 494 of lPC. Since the pr€scnt complaint

¶29

¶30

I I

¶31

is falsely made to harass the petitioners, proceedings have to be quashed.

¶32

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the Respondents that the l"t petitioner by concealing her first marriage got married to the 2"d respondent, which is an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. Further, it is a clear- case of cheating for suppressing the subsisting marriage of A1. For the said reasons, offence under Sections 494 and 42O of IPC is made out and on account of the threats given by A2 to A4, offence under Section 506 of IPC 1S a,lso maintainable. In the said circumstances, proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶33

Having perused the record, the allegation of the 2"d respondent is that he came to know that the marriage of the 1$ petitioner/Al was not dissolved and- subsisting. During the course of investigation, the police has neither identified the first husband of A1 nor collected any proof of previous marriage of the l"t petitioner/Al. ln the absence of any proof of subsisting marriage, the prosecution cannot be maintained under Section 494 of IPC. In order to attract an offence under Section 494 lPC, it has to be proved that spouse should have married when the other spouse 1S living and marriage was subsisting. There rs

¶34

neither proof hat the l't husband ol Al is^ivinll or^{that the} marriagc u,as^r ;ubsisting, except the assertio^{r\ -\1 2ttt respondent} that he carne tr, know, which is hearsay.

¶35

The inver;tigation did not identify as 1o'*'ho the^first husband of th€ l"t petitioner is. In the absence of ictentifying the Iirst husband, it cannot be said that tht'^2nd lespondrnt^was misled or false information was given to him to incluce into^the marriage with t^'r. 1 "t petitioner. The police have n,:t^,:ollected any prool to show tlLat earlier marriage of A1. For th:' sard reason, no offence is made out under Section 420 of IPC.

¶36

A ba-ld allegation that petitioners 2 to 4 hart: threatened the 2nd respondent to leave Hyderabad would not 1.,e sufficient to continue the pt osecution under Section 506 ol IPC). The exact details of the thleats or how the incident occurre,l is not narrated by the 2nd respo.rdent by giving specific detarls.

¶37

B. For the a bove mentioned reasons, the r:,cn'tinuance of criminal proceed ings against the petitioners is unw.arranted when none of the ingr:dients of any of the penal provrsions are made out.

¶38

¶39

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to ,{4 in C.C.No.6995 of 2018, dated 20.11.2018 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶40

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is a,llowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

Sdi. NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

NOTE:

This order is amended as per Court Order dated 23.01 .2023 vide order in l.A.No. 1 ol 2023 in Criminal Petition No. 5016 of 2022 is corecled as " I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan lvlagistrate, tr/edchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagad' instead-of "lV A-dditional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Naga/' in the^'l '' and 9"' Paragraph in the Order dated 10.01 .2023.

¶46

Sd/- NAYANI CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR coPY/t (. lt)

//TRUE coPY/t

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

¶51

The Station House Officer, Nacharam Police Station, Rachakonda District.

¶52

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶53

One CC to M/s. S. ROJA RAMANI, Advocate [OPUCI

¶54

Two CD Copies.

Njb

HIGH COUF T

KS,J

DATED: 231)112023

AMENDED^()RDER

CRLP.No.5016 of 2022

'^ a- iHE ST/r fr.
'.L' 'Lt:
I r)i) 0 7 rEB 2023 2
CJ
'-

¶63

ALLOWING T ]E CRIMINAL PETITION. r\u [t/

Smt Bandla Anantha Lakshmi v. The Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bandla Anantha Lakshmi v. The Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Sridhar Kiran and 2 others Vs State of Telangana and another

Mohammed Aasim Qayyumi Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Smt. Neetu Gupta Vs The State of Telangana

Shwasa Constructions Vs State of Telangana

Yerramsetti Latha , Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana

Nethi Srinivas and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another