Erati Shankariah v. The State Of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERAAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO: 5781 OF 2019 Between:
1. Erati Shankariah, S/o Yellaiah, Aged 57 yrs, Occ Govt. Employee, Fi/o Plot No.28, South Swaroop Nagar, Uppal, Rachakonda District.
2. Erali Yadamma, W/o E.Shankariah, Aged 48 yrs, Occ Housewife, Fl/o Plot No.28, South Swaroop Nagar, Uppal, Rachakonda District. ..,PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 AND 'l . The State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prose-cutor, Hyderabad, High Court at Hyderabad.
Respondent / Complainant
2. E":ali Shanta Devi, Wo E.Shankariah, Age 56 yrs, Occ Housewife, Fl/o 4-632193, Nacharam, Baba Nagar, Rachakonda District. ...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the trr'lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.3B28t2O19 on the file of the lV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar l.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 stay all further proceedings in respect of c.c.No.3828/2019 pending on the file of lV Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending final disposal of the main quash petition .
This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriGoPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No"l and Sri D KULASHEKHAR' Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 .
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5781 OF 2019 ORDER:
1.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/Al and A2 to quash the proceedings in CC No.3828 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2.
The allegation against the petitioners is that the l"t petitioner was married to the 2"d respondent/ d efacto cornplainant on 20.05.1979. They had two daughters and one son. For the reason of harassing her, the 2"d respondent lelt the 1"1 petitioner and went missing. The I't petitioner filed Crime No.24 of 1989. However, they were living separately since the year 1989. Prior to filing of the present complaint on 26.04.2019, the 2"a respondent came to know that the petitioners performed the marriage of their son on 28.02.2019 and in the said marriage card, the name of the l"t petitioner was printed as father and 2nd petitioner's narne was printed as mother. When the 2.d respondeotl defacto complainant n questioned, the l"t petitioner asked her to go away. Aggrieved by the same, complaint for the offence of bigamy, cruelty and also for criminal intimidation was filed.
l 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that admittedly , the 1"t petitioner and 2"d respondent were living their lives since the year 1989. For the reason of marriage of the son of the 1"t petitioner, present false complaint was filed' 4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent would submit that though they were living separately since the year 1989, the cause of action arose o 28-02-2019 on which date, the l"t petitioner threatened the defacto complainant/ 2na respondent of dire consequences. Further, the 1st petitioner married the 2nd petitioner during the subsistence of the marriage of the 1"t I I petitioner and the 2"d respondent, for which reason, the said marriage is void. Both the petitioners are liable for the offence of bigamy and harassment.
5.
The police filed charge sheet after investigation alleging that the l"t petitioner married the 2'd petitioner without taking divorce from the 2'd respondent. However, the only basis on which the l such conclusions are drawn is the marriage card which was collected during investigation provided by the 2"d respondent' The said marriage card cannot be considered as evidence to state that the l"t petitioner has married the 2"d petitioner. Proof of marriage would be either the marriage certificate or any witnesses who have
witnessed solemnization of the marriage of the petitioners according to customs. In the absence of any such events, only on the basis of wedding card, it cannot be concluded that the l"t petitioner married the 2na petitioner. Living as husband and wife is different from getting married in accordance with the prevailing customs. No photographs are collected nor any witnesses to the marriage, were examined during the course of investigation to ascertain whether the 1"t petitioner married the 2"d petitioner. 6.
The 2"d respondent has left the company of the l"t petitioner in the year 1989, for which reason, FIR was filed which is Cr'No'24 of 1989 of Nacharam Police Station. A copy of the said FIR is also Iiled, in which it was mentioned that the 2"d respondent was missing. There is absolutely no communication or anything that transpired in between the 1"t petitioner and 2"d respondent over a period of 3O years. When admittedly, they did not live together for 3O years, the allegation of harassment under Section 498-A of IPC is not attracted. The offence under Section 498-A of IPC is punishable upto 3 years. The limitation for filing complaint as t prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C is maximum period of three years. The complaint for harassment ought to have been {iled before 1992. Though any delay can be condoned under Section 473
.1 of Cr.P.C, since absolutely there is nothing in the entire complaint regarding an-y event that transpired from the said year, for which reason, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. 7 .
It is mentioned in the complaint that when the defacto complainant/ 2n,r respondent questioned about the marriage that was performed by these petitioners of their son, the petitioners stated that "you go and state to whomsoever you want". Even assuming that such statement was made by the petitioners, it does not amount to arr olfence of criminal intimidation. 8.
For the aforementioned reasons, the proceedings against petitioners in CC No.3B2B of 2019 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar are hereby quashed.
9.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed SD/.B.CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t il '
SECTION OFFICER To, ,TRUE COPY'
\ The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 1.
The Station House Officer, Nacharam Police Station, Rachakonda, Malkajgiri , Ranga Reddy Dist.
2.
o Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT1 J.
One CC to SRl. GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI Advocate [OPUC] t One CC to SRl. D. KULASHEKAR, Advocale [OPUC] Two CD Copies One Spare Copy MMK\._/ GJ/'
HIGH COURT DATED:1 111112022 \ T+ u'
'\ it ,'( s'
\.
s--, :) t'_ $J t\-
ORDER
CRLP.No.5781 of 2019 i/ ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION g\u )/\-'