THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2171; 6860 OF 2007 AND 1154 OF 2009 Date: 05-08-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2171 OF 2007 Between Mohd. Abdul Sattar and two others …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of a.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2171 OF 2007 Between Mohd. Abdul Sattar and another …..Petitioners And Smt. Naseem Sulthana and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1154 OF 20079 Between Mohd. Abdul Khader @ Mukarram …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of a.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2171; 6860 OF 2007 AND 1154 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners who are A-2 to A-4 in C.C No. 27 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad facing trial for the offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act filed Criminal Petition No. 2171 of 2007 to quash the proceedings initiated against them for the alleged offences. Criminal Petition No. 1154 of 2009 is filed by A-1 for the same relief. The complaint allegations show that the marriage of the defacto complainant – respondent No.2 with A-1 was performed on 14-02- 2000 under mohammed custom at Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gave Maruti 800 car, cash of Rs.1,25,000/-, 25 tolas of gold and 14 gold rings apart from decolum double cot, two steel almirahs, complete furniture, colour TV, refrigerator, washing machine, 25 sarees and other valuable items and also Sherwani and Suit to A-1. After the marriage, the defecto complainant lived happily for a period of six months and thereafter, the accused persons started demanding Rs.10,00,000/- for starting business by A-1. On the inability of the parents of the defacto complainant and on her failure to heed to their demands, A-1 beat her mercilessly at the instance of her in laws and brought her to her parents’ house and left there. Later, a panchayat was held wherein the matter was pacified, but again all of them started harassing the defacto complainant demanding additional dowry stating that if she failed to fulfil their demands, they will not allow her to join her husband and that they will perform his second marriage. At that time she was pregnant and since then she was residing with her parents. It is stated that many panchayats were held in the presence of the elders and well wishers, but the accused bluntly refused to allow her to live with them. She was blessed with a son but the accused have not visited and in spite of request made by the parents of the defacto complainant to allow the defacto complainant to live with them, they did not allow her. Basing on the complaint, the police after registering the crime and after due investigation filed charge sheet stating that as per the demands of A-1 to A-4, the parents of the defacto complainant gave net cash of Rs.1,25,000, Maruti 800 car, 25 tolas gold ornaments, all household articles and complete furniture at the time of marriage and after six months of the marriage, the accused started subjecting her to cruelty mentally and physically by demanding to provide additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- for starting business and drove her out of the house to fulfil their demands and thus committed the offence. The same has been taken on file which is now sought to be quashed. Pending the said complaint on file, the respondent – defacto complainant also filed a case in SR No. 3609 of 2007 against A-1, A-2 and A-4 in the above case before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to grant protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, maintenance order under Section 20, compensation order under Section 22 and also to direct them to pay arrears of maintenance since July 2001 and also to direct return of jahez articles received along with cash of Rs.1,25,000/-. To quash the said proceedings, Criminal Petition No. 6860 of 2007 is filed. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the incident has taken place in the year 2000 and A-1 left to Dubai, the complaint lodged in June 2004 is barred by limitation. According to him when A-2 lodged a complaint before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate against the 2nd respondent, her father and others for attacking the shop on 14-03-2003 and on forwarding a complaint, a case in Crime No. 462 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 384, 386, 500 and 506 IPC is registered against them. As a counter blast to the said complaint, the present complaint is filed only to harass the petitioners. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that it is only A-1 who is under obligation to maintain and provide a house to the complainant and, therefore, domestic violence case cannot be proceeded against the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 6860 of 2007 who are arrayed as A-2 and A-4 in the above case. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if taken on its face value can be a possible defence which the petitioners can take either in CC or in the domestic violence case, but the same cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings against them. Therefore, I see no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The criminal petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, on the petitioners A-2 to A-4 filing an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C to dispense with their presence, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and dispense with their presence on all other dates except when they are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating evidence alleged against them and thereafter. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 05-08-2010 ks