IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 156 of 2001 and WRIT APPEAL NO : 208 of 2001 WRIT APPEAL NO : 156 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/01/2000 in WP NO : 9287 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ameena Zaheeda W/o. Tahaseen R/o.Khammam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Mohd.Sayeed S/o.Majeed R/o. Qr.No.No.T2-14, 8th Incline Godavarikhani Karimnagar Dist. 2 The Station House office II Town Police station Godavari Khani Karimnagar dist. 3 The Superintendent of Police Karimnagar Dist Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.H.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP for Home and WRIT APPEAL NO : 208 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/01/2000 in WP NO : 9295 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ameen Zaheeda W/o.Tahaseen R/o.Khammam ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Arshunnisa W/o.Abdul Sayeed R/o.Qr.No.T2-14,8th Incline Godavarikhani Karimnagar District 2 The Station Head Officer II Town Police Station Godavarikhani Karimnagar Dist 3 The Superintendent of Police Karimnagar Dist Karimnagar .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.H.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP for Home The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.NOs. 156 & 208 OF 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Both these writ appeals have been ﬁled against the common order dated 24.1.2000 passed in W.P. Nos. 9295 and 9287 of 1999 and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. We have heard Sri. H. Venugopal, Learned counsel for the appellants as well as the Learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 2 and 3. Sri. Nandigam Krishna Rao, Advocate has submitted that he has given up his vakalat for the 1st respondent and he has no instructions to appear. The record also does not disclose any other advocate having ﬁled vakalat on behalf of the 1st respondent. The writ petitions were ﬁled to declare the action of the Station House Oﬃcer, Godavarikhani, II Town Police Station, Karimnagar District in implicating the writ petitioners as accused in Crime No. 91 of 1999 for the oﬀences under Sections 498-A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to declare that there is no prima facie case either to investigate or charge the writ petitioners in the above said crime. The learned single Judge elaborately dealt with the merits of the case and observed that the acts of the accused No.3 did not fall within the four corners of Section 498-A of IPC, and that there was no speciﬁc allegation against any of the accused except making a bald allegation that all the accused were harassing her to bring more money from her father to enable accused No.1 to go to Dubai. The learned single Judge further observed that accused No.1 had gone to Dubai and returned back in 1996 and he was a Government employee and hence the question of demanding any amount from 1995 had to be scanned thoroughly and, on such exercise, he found no material whatsoever that the accused had harassed the defacto-complainant by making an unlawful demand to bring more money from her parents. The learned single Judge went on to hold that, after 1995, if there was any harassment of the defacto-complainant by the accused, it may be due to suspicion over her character or it may be the result of a second marriage contracted by the accused No.1 at the behest of other accused. The learned single Judge observed that as the parties were Muslims, a man was entitled to live with four wives at a time and as the defacto-complainant could not prosecute him on this ground, she had ﬁled a false complaint. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that, when once there was no harassment for dowry within three years from the date of the complaint, no oﬀence could be registered under Section 498-A of IPC. The learned single Judge also found fault with the Station House Oﬃcer for ﬁling a charge sheet not only for oﬀences under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC, but also for oﬀences under Sections 323 and 506 (2) of IPC even after the defacto-complainant refused to go through a medical examination to prove her case that she was assaulted by accused No.2 not only on her body but also on her private parts. It is well settled that the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and that this Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sparingly and only in the rarest of the rare case. The learned single Judge could not have dealt with the merits of the case, and re-appreciated the contents of the charge sheet, as these are all matters of evidence to be gone into by the trial Court and not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of the learned single Judge is, therefore, set aside. As a result the trial Court shall proceed with the case against the accused in accordance with law. The Writ Appeals are allowed. However, under the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt.22.7.2008 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }