RAMBABU VINJAM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by accused No.1 under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.9077 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ranga Reddy District-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, 'the trial Court').

(2.) Brief facts as stated by the prosecution in the charge sheet are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 19/1/2019 at Saroornagar Police Station stating that the petitioner herein and his second wife and his elder brother who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, have omitted the offences under Ss. 494 and 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). In the complaint, it was stated by the de facto complainant that the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 was performed as per the Hindu rites and customs on 15/11/2003 and subsequently, disputes had arisen between them and during the subsistence of their marriage, her husband has conducted second marriage with accused No.2 on 14/12/2018 and that accused No.3 has supported his brother and has threatened the de facto complainant and her relatives with serious consequences if questioned about the second marriage. The case was registered as FIR No.42 of 2019 under Ss. 420, 494 and 506 IPC and subsequently the charge sheet was filed for the offences under Ss. 494 and 506 read with Sec. 34 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the marriage, the petitioner and the de facto complainant both shifted to U.S. and obtained U.S. citizenship and due to matrimonial disputes, they approached the Courts in U.S. to get divorce decree on 16/11/2017 as per mutual agreement and therefore, the marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant ceased to exist from the date of divorce. It is submitted that as per the agreement before the Court granting divorce, the properties were distributed and appropriate amounts in US dollars value were shared in the years 2018 and 2019 and it is thereafter, that the complaint dt.19/1/2019, was filed before the police in Hyderabad. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner has conducted second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is false and baseless. It is denied that the second marriage is performed without distribution of money as per the agreement. Therefore, according to him, the provisions of Sec. 494 IPC are not attracted in this case. It is submitted that the present complaint is filed with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner herein and therefore, it is in clear abuse of process of law and is therefore liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the following judgments.