THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2775 OF 2010 DATED:29-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in F.I.R.No.100 of 2010 Women police station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. None appeared for the 2nd respondent. Perused the records. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner-A3 and two others alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 406 r/w 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the same to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and report. Thereupon, police registered First Information Report in Cr.No.100 of 2010. Investigation is in the initial stage. Petitioner-A3 is stated to be the paternal uncle of A1. A1 is the husband and A2 is the mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-A3 has nothing to do with the disputes between the 2nd respondent and her husband and that he only acted as an elder in performing the marriage as the father of A1 is no more. He would further contend that at the time of the alleged offence, on 21-11-2009, petitioner-A3 was out of country, he having left on Haz pilgrimage on 13-11-2009, and returned to the country on 11-12-2009. 5. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner filed copies of the passport of the petitioner-A3 containing the endorsement of the immigration authorities. As seen from the contents of the complaint, specific allegations have been made against the petitioner-A3 also, besides the husband-A1 and mother-in-law-A2 of the 2nd respondent. It is alleged that on 21-11-2009 A2 and A3 dragged the 2nd respondent out of the house keeping all the articles with them saying that A1 had divorced her. The question as to whether or not petitioner-A3 was in the country on the said date and whether he was out of country at that time having gone on pilgrimage, is a matter to be considered during the course of investigation. Petitioner is at liberty to produce the material papers, including the passport containing the endorsement of the immigration authorities, and the Investigating Officer is directed to take them also into consideration while investigating the case as the complaint makes specific allegations against the petitioner-A3. The truth or otherwise of the alibi put forth by the petitioner-A3 is a matter to be considered only after necessary investigation. It is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further investigation in Cr.No.100 of 2010. 6. It is well settled that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with care and caution and cannot be invoked to thwart the further investigation into a complaint, especially when specific allegations have been made. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to quash the further investigation. However, petitioner-A3 may not be arrested till the conclusion of the investigation and filing of charge sheet, if any. 7. Criminal Petition is dismissed with the above observation. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November, 2010 Tsy