[ 32sl ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT IIYDERABAD

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10181 OF 2022

Between:

Mohammed Moizuddin, S/o Md. Mujeebuddin, Aged about 24 years, Occ.

Business, Rito. H.No. 19-2-146121C, Tadban, Kalapathar, Hyderabad
...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.1
AND
,|
The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State
of Telangana At Hyderabad.
2 Adil Babekar Alhaj, S/o. Babekar, Aged about.59 years, Occ.Mechanic, R/o.
Sudan Country temporarily came to Hyderabad

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

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 quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.'1 in
C.C.No.20 ot 2O2O On the file of Hon'ble Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for
Excise Cases at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

1.A. NO: 2OF 2022

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 of all further proceedings including appearance of the
Petitioner/Accused No.1 Charge Sheet in C.C.No.20 oI 2020 On the file of Hon'ble
Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases at Manoranjan Complex,
Nampally, Hyderabad.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of

Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Veera Babu
Gandu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on
behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

 THE H.ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SI']T,ENDER
( RIMINAL PETITION No. 1O181 O? ito22

ORDER:
This C. nrinal Petition is Iiled under Secticn 482 of the Code

of Crinrinal Procedure, 7973 (for short 'C -.P C.) by the

petitionerr/ A I to quash the proceedings against l: im in C.C.No.20

of 2O2O on r< {ile of Special Judicia-l First Clir:;s lr{agisrrate lor

Excise Clases; at Maloranjan Complex, Nampall'r. Hyderabad. The

oflences allept:t against the petitioner are under Slr-'ctjons 494, 42O

and 506 r/r..,,. 1., of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Ilearcl lt.arned counsel for the petitio:-rt.r and learned

Aclditirtnal Pr l;lrc Prosecutor for the respondent - St1te. pcrlrscd

thc recor d

3. l-hr: 2,, rt:spondent filed complaint aJli ging tliar rhrs

petitioner/A l ,r,:rs having illicit intimacy w tl.r l-ris u.ife/A2.

Petitioner ha< rleveloped acquaintance with ,{2 k..ro',r,ing that she

n'as s marrie r ady. Petitioner and A2 were also trlessed ir ith tu.o

children. Whr rr questioned by 2.d respondent abo,_rt [he relaLion, it

is allegecl tlra .ir I and A2 threatened the 2na res.tr:ndent s.ith drre
conseq uCncc:j
 2

4. l.earned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the question of cheating does not arise as none of the

ingredients of cheating are made out' Secondly, the offence under

Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be taken cognizance

by the Magistrate as there is a bar under Section 198(1) of Cr'P C'

Accordingly, prayed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner/A1.

5. On the other hand, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that the Court has rightly taken cognizance of the offence

under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the

Judgment rendered by this Court in Miryala Diuga and S others

u. Gottt. of A.P.I, ln CrLP.No.SS4 & 119a of 2O77,

dt.19.09.2074,

6. An offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is

attracted when a spouse marries again during the subsistence of

his or her marriage. In the present case, it is not the case of the

prosecution that this petitioner was married earlier and rvhile his

marriage was subsisting, he married Accused No'2 For the said

reason, Section 494 of the lndian Penal Code is not attracted'

I
to l5( r ) At-D (crl) I l5
 3

7 . 'l'o attrir :1, an offence under Section 42O ctf t re Indian Penal

Code, there h rs to be a frauduient mis-representa.l.ion pursuant to

u.hich a pers: n must have been induced and therr-.bv the induced

person shoul 'ravc delivered some properr.y. Eve e a.ccepting the

allegatron [ha .rrl uas having illicit intimacv uit.tL.,\2, it would not
attrirct thLe o[],'nce under Section 42O of the [ndiac. Perra_l Code

8. Thc ugh th(:re is a mention that this petitioner had

threatene d tl- , 2o(l respondent of dire consequerlces, the specihc

details ol' sur: r threats or utterances, are not rrr: ntioned by !"a
respondent. Io- the said reason the offence under Sr,ction 506 of
the lndian Per al Codc. is also not made out.

9. Acc,rrdrrr <) ,'. tl-re Criminal Petition is aU.r,wed and the

procceclrngs a! a n:it the petitioner/Al in C.C.No.20 of 2O2O on the

file o[ Spr:cral Jrrdicizrl First Class Magistrate for [L)xcr se Cases at

Manoranjan C rnrplex, Nampally, Hyderabad, is hr:r,::by quashed

Misr:ellir, errus applications pending, if a::.',, shall stand

closed
SD/-N.CHA { I)RA SEKHAR.RAO
ASSIS rANT REGIS-T,AR
//TRUE COPY// tiECTlONtrFFtcER

To, for Excise CaSeS at l/ ?no.anian

1 The Soec,al Jutl ;ri,l First CIaSS Maglstrate
co.oE*, Nam0 rll", Hyde'?91:nathar
Ka police Station, Hvderab t:
2 The Statrc,rr Horr ;e Officer'
3 on."CL'r,is,, r're a Babu Ganiiu Advocate [OPUC] ^. . of '-e angana at
llre )Lblic pr,ot"ttrt"oi r]ig ti 6;'"iiot tntj State
4 Two ccs ro
Hyclerabad. [Ot. I]
5 Two CD Oopres,
gbr

I
HIGH COURI

DATED: 2710.t12023

ORDER J
l
Itt $i}
CRL.P.No.10'81 of 2022

ALLOWING T {E CRIMINAL PETITION

d_ rO
o{
lo \4\P3