IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3668 of 2010 Between: Abdul Qadir Samad & others ..... PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh ..... RESPONDENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3668 OF 2010 ORDER : This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 in crime No.553 of 2009 of Women Police Station of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, relating to offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The first petitioner is husband of the second respondent-de facto complainant. Petitioners 2 to 4 are his brother, mother and another relation. It is alleged that the second respondent was subjected to cruelty by way of mental and physical harassment for the sake of additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and that her minor daughter was abducted by the petitioners. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, 50 tulas of gold, 50 costly dresses, 15 pairs of shoes, furniture worth about Rs.1,00,000/-, electronic and household articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- were given towards dowry apart from other things given subsequent to marriage. The allegations contained in report given by the second respondent, if taken on their face value, would certainly reveal the offence for which F.I.R. was issued. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that at one place the second respondent contends that there is no document signed by the accused for ‘Jahez’ articles and at another place she filed one paper said to contain the signatures of the first petitioner and that she is coming forward with a false case. Truth or falsity of the second respondent’s allegations in her report cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is a question of fact. Reliance was placed by the petitioners’ counsel on Sundar babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu[1] of the Supreme Court and contended that irrespective of period of limitation, delay in giving report is also fatal and amounts to abuse of process of law. In the case on hand, it is stated that report was given by the second respondent to the Police two years after the first respondent left India for Saudi Arabia. The Supreme Court in the above reported decision held as follows: “ In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Sec.482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.“ Facts in that reported decision are to the effect that report was given by the wife after seven months of the husband leaving the country for U.S.A. and that subsequent to giving report alleging offence under Section 498A IPC, the de facto complainant filed divorce petition and obtained ex parte divorce decree and thereafter underwent second marriage with another one. Observations of the Supreme Court were made having regard to the above peculiar and specific facts of that case. The said ratio cannot be applied to facts of the present case. I do not find any legal grounds at this stage for quashing the F.I.R. and intercepting investigation at its threshold. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 23rd April, 2010 SUR [1] 2009 (TLS) 48381