—
Telangana High Court
Dr Sangeetha Agarwal Alias Sangita … vs The State Of Telangana on 22 February, 2024
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6253 of 2023
ORDER:
In this Criminal petition, Petitioner is accused No.1 and is
seeking quash of the proceedings in C.C.No.986/2021 of
P.S.Vanasthalipuram, pending on the file of VII Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar, under Section
494 of IPC and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the ex-wife of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner got
married to the complainant on 14.09.1999 as per Hindu Rites and
Customs at Hyderabad. In the year 2009, the petitioner left her
matrimonial home of the complainant, on her own accord and filed
several cases against the complainant including divorce petition
before the Family Court at L.B.Nagar and obtained decree of divorce
on 08.06.2017 in FCOP No.501/2013. The respondent
No.2/complainant preferred an appeal before this Court and the
decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, was suspended by this
Court on 28.12.2017 in FCA No.357/2017 and as such the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 got restored. It is
submitted that the respondent No.2, on coming to know about the
2 TMD,J
Crl.P.No.6253 of 2023
petitioner leaving India by obtaining passport in her maiden name i.e.,
Sangeeta Mamidi, on 16.04.2021, a criminal case against her at
Hayathnagar Court was filed and the Passport Officer have enquired
into the matter, took cognizance against the petitioner and directed
her to surrender the passport. It is submitted that during the inquiry,
it came to the notice of the authorities that petitioner has fraudulently
and deliberately indulged in the second marriage illegally on
28.03.2018, performed at Chikkadapally during the subsistence of the
first marriage and had subsequently got it registered on 04.01.2019 in
the office of SRO, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. Hence, the respondent
No.2 requested to take necessary action against the petitioner and
also her second husband for performing second marriage during the
subsistence of the first marriage.
3. It is submitted that an FIR was registered as Crime
No.641/2021, under Sections 420 and 494 of IPC. It is submitted that
when the complaint of the complainant does not disclose the
ingredients of Section 420 of IPC, the respondents could not have
registered such case against the petitioner herein. It is submitted that
the Police have not inquired into the matter, but have registered the
case under Section 420 of IPC only to implicate the petitioner and
others in a false case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
3 TMD,J
Crl.P.No.6253 of 2023
that the petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.11067 of 2022
challenging the cognizance taken by the Court and the same has been
allowed and this Court had quashed the offence under Section 420 of
IPC and directed the trial Court to proceed with the trial in respect of
offence under Section 494 of IPC only. It is submitted that the
proceedings in C.C.No.986 of 2021 are liable to be quashed against
the petitioner, as the same was registered by Vanasthalipuram Police
who have no jurisdiction over the place where the alleged incident has
happened.
4. However, it is noticed that the petitioner herein is the
accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 herein had filed Criminal
Petition No.11067 of 2022 and this Court had allowed in part by
deleting only the Section 420 of IPC from the charge sheet. The
second Criminal Petition is filed for the very same offence for
quashing i.e., offence under Section 494 of IPC, which is not
permissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham
Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 1, has observed
as under:
“9. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned amicus curiae, would however point out
that entertainment of the second petition in Mohan Singh (supra) was held
permissible as the circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent
petition were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier
one and that was the distinguishing factor which saved the second petition.
1
S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7976 of 2023, dated 30.10.2023
4 TMD,J
Crl.P.No.6253 of 2023He would further point out that, in Simrikhia vs. Dolley Mukherjee and
Chhabi Mukherjee and another5, this Court cautioned that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to override the bar
of review under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to Sooraj Devi vs.
Pyare Lal and another6 which held that the inherent power of the Court
could not be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also drew our attention to R.
Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others7, wherein a
quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 28.01.1995 and
without mentioning the same, another petition was filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. with a similar prayer. Noting that the second petition was not made
on the strength of anything which had developed after 28.01.1995 but only
on the facts which subsisted prior to that date, this Court held that the
second petition was not maintainable, as the High Court did not have the
power to upset the order dated 28.01.1995 which had attained finality.
10. In S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunan8, the Madras High Court
observed that a person who invokes Section 482 Cr.P.C. should honestly
come before the Court raising all the pleas available to him at that point
ofime and he is not supposed to approach the Court with instalment pleas. It
was further observed that there may be a change of circumstances during
the course of criminal proceedings which would give scope for the person
aggrieved to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, but when he is
posted with all the facts and circumstances of a case, he cannot withhold
part of it for the purpose of filing yet another petition seeking the same relief.
11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the
Madras High Court. Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that
a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in any situation
and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual
case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though
all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting
the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ignoring this
principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the
proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing
one petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the
cause therefore arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.”
5. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner can take the objection about the jurisdiction of the
respondent police. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
5 TMD,J
Crl.P.No.6253 of 2023
with the trial at this stage and accordingly, the Criminal Petition is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
7. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
__
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 22.02.2024
bak
