Bigamy

software engineer

 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

 

Crl.P.Nos.XXX/08, XXX/09 & XXX/2010 

 

COMMON ORDER:

 

          Crl.P.No.XXX of 2008 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings C.C.No.XXX of 2008 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate,XXX registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

          Crl.P.No.XXX of 2009 is filed seeking to quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.XXX of 2009 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, XXX filed for passing protection orders, house facility orders, maintenance orders, to arrest the respondents therein and to pay necessary compensation under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

          Crl.P.No.XXX of 2010 is filed seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.XX of 2010 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur itself registered for offences punishable under Sections 405, 406 read with Section 34 IPC on the ground that gold and articles given to A1 to A3 at the time of marriage between A1 and the complainant and kept with them (A1 to A3) by the complainant were misappropriated by them (A1 to A3).

           The petitioners are A1 to A3 (for short ‘A1 to A3’) in both the calendar cases and respondents 1 to 3 in the domestic violence case and further the petitioner No.4 in Crl.P.No.XXX/2008 is A4 in the C.C.No.XXX of 2008, whereas the first respondent therein is the complainant in all the cases. 

The parties will be referred as arrayed in C.C.No.XXX of 2008, for convenience sake.

          Earlier on 7.4.2009 the complainant filed a private complaint before the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate and it was referred to XXX P.S. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for necessary investigation and report and on that basis, the complaint was registered in Crime No.XX of 2009 under Sections 405 and 406 read with Section 34 IPC on its file and after the investigation of the case, the police filed final report on 30.6.2009 holding it to be a non-cognizable case on the ground that the complainant had love affair with one X and some disputes arose between them and hiding that factum of marriage, she married A1 and thereafter the said X filed civil suit in O.S.No.XXX of 2007 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, XXX objecting the marriage between the complainant and A1 alleging that he married the complainant earlier and she again married A1 deceptively and thereafter A1 gave report for punishing the complainant under Sections 494, 504, 506 and 420 IPC which was registered as Cr.No.XX of 2008 on the file of XXX L&O P.S.  which was investigated into, following which a charge sheet was filed, which has been pending trial and the complainant was found to be a litigant and involved in harassing A1 and his relatives by approaching Courts in various manner and nothing was given to A1 at the time of marriage as alleged and therefore the question of application of Sections 405 and 406 IPC would not arise at all.   Further, consequently the complainant filed protest petition which was termed as fresh complaint, whereas the Court recorded the statements of herself and her witnesses and on that basis taken the case on file.

          The case of the complainant in all the cases is as follows:

          She married A1 in the case and at the time of marriage, her father gave cash of Rs.1,75,000/-  as ‘stridhana’, 40 sovereigns of gold in the form of four gold bangles, two gold necklaces, one gold chain, one gold vankee and chain with two rows and silver items worth Rs.50,000/-, various household items worth Rs.50,000/- and so also number of silk sarees worth more than Rs.50,000/-.  In fact, the marriage photos show that she was wearing various gold ornaments and other items.  Further, after the marriage ceremony on 28.1.2007, she handed over all those items along with her music note books and degree books etc., to A1 to A3 having confidence that they would take care of all those items.   Subsequently, A1 to A3 started harassing her in a very cruel manner and they also collected additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents  and in spite of the same, they continued to ill-treat her in many ways.  Further, on 31.3.2008 she went to the house of her parents at XXX, but later A1 to A3 did not take her back and ever since she has been residing at her parents house.  Further, her father requested A1 to A3 to return the said articles, but they threatened him of foisting false cases if those articles were asked to be returned and afraid of the same, she and her parents kept silent.  Further, because A1 to A3 wrongfully detained those articles, it would amount to criminal breach of trust and therefore they are liable for punishment under Sections 405 and 406 IPC.

          It is further pleaded in the Domestic Violence Case (DVC) that there is no proper shelter for her to reside after she was evicted from the matrimonial house and she requires necessary protection orders, compensation etc. from A1 to A3.

          It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 to A3 that the allegation of giving the said articles to them and also harassing the complainant are nothing but false and there is no acceptable material in that context.  Further, it is alleged in the complaint that the jewelry and other objects were given to A1 on 28.1.2007 whereas the complaint was filed on 29.1.2010 and hence it is barred by limitation under Section 468 IPC and there is good material to the effect that the complainant married another person by name X and without dissolving that marriage, she married A1 by reason of which the second marriage with A1 is not tenable and in fact, the complainant gave report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, XXX L & O Police Station against X and his parents on the ground that they harassed her subsequent to her marriage with X in respect of which, a true copy of the report and true copy of relevant G.D. entry and so also marriage photographs between the complainant and X are filed before the Court and hence prima facie, there is no relationship of wife and husband between A1 and the complainant and false complaints or report were given by her to the police or before the Court and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 

          On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that there is clear material to the effect that those articles were given to A1 at the time of marriage and A1 to A3 wrongfully retained them, though the complainant kept those articles with them having believed them and unless necessary trial is conducted, the truth of the matter will not come to light and therefore, there are no merits in the petition, by reason of which, it should be dismissed.

          The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings.

          It is emphatical that no documents are filed with regard to giving the money and articles to A1 or A2 and A3 at the time of marriage or subsequently.  Further, if the claim of the complainant is true, she would have taken necessary measures for the return of those articles soon after she left the matrimonial house on 31.3.2008.  There is no record to the effect that after she left the matrimonial house on 31.3.2008 and before filing the complaint on 17.2.2009, she gave any notice to A1 to A3 to return those articles, apart from the fact that there is no record about giving the articles to them by the complainant or her parents.  It is also not clearly stated in the complaint as to whether any third parties witnessed the incident of giving the articles to A1 to A3.  Further, the marriage photos are not sufficient to come to any conclusion in this context. 

          It is also pertinent to note here that as per the final report filed by the police, the complainant married A1 suppressing her love affair with one X and in fact X filed suit O.S.No.XXX of 2007 claiming to be the husband of the complainant and objecting the marriage between the complainant and A1 and thereafter A1 also filed a report to punish the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 504, 506 and 420 IPC which was registered as Cr.No.XXX of 2008 of XXX L&O P.S. which was investigated into, following which the corresponding charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court.  Further, true copies of the complaint and G.D. entries filed before the Court amply provide that the complainant gave report to the police on the ground that X and his parents harassed her being her husband and in-laws and necessary entry was made in the general diary of the police station under Serial No.XXX/06 dated XX.2.2006, whereas the photographs filed also provide that there was marriage between the complainant and X.

Further under Section 406 IPC, the imprisonment prescribed is three years or fine or both.  Further, by virtue of Section 468 IPC, the case should have been filed before the concerned Magistrate within three years of giving articles.  In fact, cognizance of the case was taken beyond the period of three years and therefore the case is barred by limitation so far as the articles given at the time of marriage are concerned.  Therefore, there is no basis to prosecute A1 to A3 for the alleged offence under Sections 405 and 406 IPC.  Ultimately, the proceedings are to be quashed as devoid of merits.

Further, there is no specific denial about the filing of all those cases.  There is material prima facie to the effect that the complainant married the said X and while that marriage was subsisting, she married A1 again and therefore the application of the alleged provisions of Domestic Violence Act and also Section 498-A IPC does not arise at all.  

In the circumstances, it appears prima facie that all the proceedings are initiated in order to harass A1 to A3 or A1 to A4 as the case may be without any truth therein.

In the result, all the criminal petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.

 

________________________

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

Dated:  23-12-2011

DA

 

Respected advocates,

 

Now the questions are as below.

1)Is there any ground for them to challenge the petition in SC ???

2)As mentioned in the above judgement,i also filed 420,494 etc for which they obtained a Anticipatory bail. is there any ground to cancel that bail based on this judgement  ??? or

a)using Erasement of evidences or??

b)cruality ???

please suggest the grounds to cancel their bail.

Please suggest  anyother criminal sections which i can file against them.

All the above suggestions i'm asking above are to come out of the case as they are deliberately dragging the matter and i'm loosing my life and money with the court procedures.

 

Please kindly suggest ... !!!!



Attached File : 130743865 modified judgement.doc downloaded 52 times
 
Reply   
 
Worker

thanx for the update.

could u please provide the court name ??

 
Reply   
 


software engineer

A.P High Court

 
Reply   
 
Worker

@ siri,

Thank you very much for sharing.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu