SHAIK PAKEER AHMMAD Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.P No.1216/2001 is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience, to quash proceedings in C.C. No.47/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, Guntur by the petitioners/A-1 to A-4. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The offences are Sections 498-A and 494 Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as "IPC". Crl.R.C. No.201/2001 is filed by the respondent/husband aggrieved by an order made in M.C. No.23/99 on the file of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, dated 9-1-2001. The 1st respondent in the said criminal revision case is the wife. The learned Magistrate in the said Maintenance case recorded the evidence of P. W.1-wife, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also R.W.1, marked Exs.P-1, Exs.R-1 to R-8 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled for a monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- from the date of petition i.e., 22-6-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code.

(2.) Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in criminal petition and also the petitioner in the criminal revision case made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that the wife cannot further proceed with the prosecution of the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC with which the petitioners in the criminal petition had been charged for the reason that the proceedings had been initiated after a long lapse of time. In fact it is abuse of process of Court as well as process of Law for the reason that the wife had been making repeated complaints and in fact at a particular point of time there was some settlement between the parties and again she thought of initiating yet another action and the same is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would contend that the allegations made by the wife are baseless and totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel also explained that inasmuch as a complaint relating to the offence of Bigamy had been made, the parties being Muslims governed by the Muslim Personal Law, the provisions of Section 494 IPC are not attracted at all. Even otherwise, the language of Section 494 IPC itself would show that the marriage should be a void marriage. The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant passage in Mohammedan Law by Mulla in this regard. The learned Counsel also would maintain that at any rate the police cannot file the charge-sheet in relation to the offence under Section 494 IPC and at the best it can be by means of a complaint by the person aggrieved. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 198 and 198-A of the Code and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 468, 469, 470, 472 and 473 of the Code and would maintain that in any view of the matter, the further proceedings cannot be proceeded with and they are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also incidentally had drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded in the Maintenance Case and would maintain that even granting of maintenance cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the allegations made in the charge-sheet and would maintain that these are all matters to be gone into the appropriate stage and hence the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.