IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8012 OF 2019 Between: 1. Gedela Vijay Sekhar, , S/o Laxmi Galeswara Rao, Aged 34 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, 2. Gedele Saritha @ Kurella Savethri, W/o Laxmi Ganeswara Rao, Aged 48 years, 3. Gedela Raja Sekhar, S/o Laxmi Galeswara Rao, Aged 29 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, Flat No. 301, Suvarna Residency, Srinagar, Rama Talkies lane, Visakhapatnam Town, Visakhapatnam District. 4. Gedela Laxmi Galeswara Rao, S/o Markandeyulu, Aged 58 years, Occ. Govt. Service, Flat No 303/A, Suvarna Residency Srinagar, Rama Talkies lane, Visakhapatnam Town, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Gedele Priyadarsini, W/o Gedela Raja Sekhar, Aged 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o D No 318A3/2 Road No 3, Ayodhyanagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...1®^ RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAIANT The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by in Public Prosecutor, High Conn of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravathi. ...RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT f 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 pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 30 of 2018 on the file of III Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 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 stay all further proceedings in Crime No. 30 of 2018 on the file of III Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 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 dispense with filing of the certified of copy of FIR in Crime No. 30 of 2018 on the file of III Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District dated 20-02-2018. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER : 1 APHC010441072019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8012/2019 Between; Gedela Vijay Sekhar and others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S) AND Gedele Priyadarsini and others Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S): 1.N RAVI PRASAD ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. The Court made the following: ^ ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.30 of 2018 on the file of III Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 494 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent/defacto complainant lodged a report with the police of III Town Police Station, Kakinada alleging that her marriage with the petitioner/accused No.1 was performed on 07.05.2015 at Kakinada a) as per the Hindu Rights and Customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs. 16,00,000/- cash, flat situated in Vizag, 8 acres of land, 12 kgs silver and 125 sovereigns of gold to her husband and his family members towards dowry. Petitioners No.2 and 4 are the parents of accused No.1, and petitioner No.3 is the brother of accused No.1. Subsequently, accused No.1 and his parents forcibly sent the defacto complainant to her parents house 25.12.2015 as they were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents. She has initiated legal steps against her husband and his family members and the said cases are pending. on b) While the matter stood thus, recently she came to know that during subsistence of their marriage her husband married another woman by name Kasimkota Deepthi Radha @ Deepthi Raju on 28.04.2016 at Shanthi Resorts, Phase-11, Vizianagaram District with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4. On the basis of the said complairit lodged by the defacto complainant a case in 3 Crime No.30 of 2018 was registered on the file of Kakinada III Town Police for the offence under Section 494 IPC. 3. While ordering notice before admission on 03.01.2020, this Court passed the following interim order: “There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 30 of 2018 on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ” Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional 4. Public Prosecutor. 5. None appeared for respondent No.1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as seen from the contents of the report in FIR No.30 of 2018 no allegation of harassment has been mentioned except saying that she was driven out. The alleged marriage with one Deepthi on 28.04.2016 is baseless, without any evidence. It is further submitted that 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice was issued to the mother and brother of the 1®‘ petitioner, wherein the offences were shown under Section 498-A, 494 read with 34 IPC, but however crime was registered only under Section 494 IPC. No alteration memo has been filed in the trial Court or altered FIR has been registered in the present crime. The offence under Section 494 is a non- cognizable offence and the police have no jurisdiction to register the crime. Except the allegation that the other petitioners have participated in the marriage, no allegations have been attributed against them, as such the offence under Section 494 is not made out. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 4 -1 Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel 7. representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows; "Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.30 of 2018 of III Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 5 9. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In ‘R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^ ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations 10. set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however. necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint AIR I960 SC 866 6 has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^ ” In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Laf”' the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint; 11. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. "air 1990 SC 494 "1992 Supp(1)SCC 335 7 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. -IK (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. For better appreciation of the case, Section 494 of IPC, is 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. ” 13. From the above, it can be understood that whoever marries another person during the life time of his/her spouse is punishable under Section 494 IPC, but not other persons. 14. In the instant case, it is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1/petitioner No.1 has married another woman by name Deepthi during subsistence of his marriage with the defacto complainant. Thus, he is only liable to be proceeded with for the offence under Section 494 IPC and the petitioners No.2 to 4/accused Nos.3 to 5 cannot be prosecuted for the said 8 f offence. Hence, continuation of proceedings against them for the offence under Section 494 of IPC is nothing but abuse of process of law, therefore the proceedings initiated against the petitioners No.2 to 4/accused Nos.3 to 5 are liable to be quashed. However, so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned since, specific 15. allegation is made in the complaint that he has married one Deepthi during the subsistence of marriage with the defacto complainant and truth or otherwise of the said allegation has to be decided only after full fledged trial this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner No.1/accused No.1. 16. For the foregoing discussions, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners No.2 to 4/accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in Crime No.30 of 2018 on the file of III Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari, alone are hereby quashed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed as against petitioner No.1/accused No.1. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SDI- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kakinada. r 2. The Station House Officer, III Town Police Godavari District. 3. One CC to Sri. N Ravi Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravathi [OUT] 5. THREE CD COPIES Station, Kakinada, East Pradesh at PR TAG HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.8012 of 2019 0 2 APR 2025 (3: ^ ^ Current SeeticMf: ALLOWING THE CRLP IN PART