Rambabu Vinjam vs State Of Telangana

This Criminal Petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 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’).

Brief facts as stated by the prosecution in the charge sheet are that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 19.01.2019 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 Sections 494 and 506 read with Section 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 Sections 420, 494 and 506 IPC and subsequently the charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 494 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

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.19.01.2019, 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 Section 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.

(1) P.Satyanarayana and another Vs. P.Mallaiah and others (1996) 6 SCC 122

(2) Mavuri Rani Veerabhadramma @ Kandarpa Prameela @ Mavuri Prameela Vs. The State of A.P. and another 2007 (1) A.P.L.J. 76 (HC).

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, however, supported the case of the prosecution.

In spite of service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.2.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that divorce was granted by the Court in U.S., i.e., Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland 20850, USA on 16.11.2017 and entered on 28.11.2017 subject to monetary payment of $150,000.00 and that the petitioner herein has made the payment of $25,000.00 out of the said $150,000.00 from out of the sale proceeds of one of the marital properties located in U.S. and the balance part of $125,000.00 seems to be under dispute. This Court is of the opinion that after the divorce decree has been granted by the Court and if the conditions in the said divorce decree are not complied with, the de facto complainant ought to have taken appropriate steps before the Courts in U.S., but filing of a case of bigamy under Section 494 IPC before the Courts in India is not maintainable. Unless the Court which has granted divorce, observes that the divorce is subject to the fulfilment of the conditions and sets aside the divorce decree on account of non-compliance with any of the conditions of the divorce decree, only then can it be said that the marriage between accused No.1, the petitioner herein, and the de facto complainant was in subsistence and the offence under Section 494 IPC is made out. The police have not brought out as to how the provisions of Section 506 IPC are applicable in this case except for relying on bald and omnibus allegations made by the de facto complainant.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner (1 and 2 supra) also support the case of the petitioner that proper investigation has to be conducted before concluding that the offence under Section 494 IPC is committed. There is no evidence collected or gathered by the police for coming to the conclusion that the offence of bigamy has been committed to attract the provisions of Section 494 IPC.

Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the complaint which is registered as C.C.No.9077 of 2021 by the trial Court under Sections 494 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC is mere abuse of process of law and therefore, the same has to be quashed as against the petitioner herein/accused No.1 and it is accordingly quashed.

This Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.