THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.132 of 2009 (Dated : 30-7-2010) Between: Chetti Surya Rao S/o Asservadham And another …Petitioners A n d State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.132 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.521 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem with a prayer to quash the proceedings therein. 2. The 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 28.5.1969 as per the customs prevailing in their community at Amalapuram. They were blessed with three female issues. According to the 2nd respondent-wife, the 1st petitioner-husband became addicted to bad vices; such as drinking, womenising and started harassing her to bring additional dowry and ultimately, necked her out from the matrimonial home in the year 1995. It is also her version that the 1st petitioner-husband developed a questionable relationship with the petitioner No.2. The 2nd respondent-wife presented a complaint before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Station House Officer, Pentapadu P.S under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the S.H.O., Pentapadu P.S registered a case in Crime No. 111 of 2008 under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and issued F.I.R. After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pentapadu P.S before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.521 of 2008. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.521 of 2008 with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice to respondent No.2 came to be ordered on 21.1.2009 The 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent-wife filed O.P.No.49 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and obtained judicial separation and since then, she never lived with the 1st petitioner and thus, the accusation leveled against the petitioners that they harassed her on the ground of additional dowry are only invented for the purpose of the case. Learned counsel referred the copy of the order passed in O.P.No.49 of 1992 and also notices exchanged between the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that after judicial separation, the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent lived together as wife and husband and during the said period, the petitioners harassed the 2nd respondent for additional dowry. 7. I have gone through the order passed in O.P.No.49 of 1992. It is the 2nd petitioner, who filed O.P under Sections 10, 22 and 23 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for grant of divorce and also for maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. The said O.P came to be allowed on 31.3.1992. The order passed in the said O.P reads as hereunder:- “ Pw-1 is examined. The evidence of Pw.1 reveals the petitioner and the respondent were married on 28.5.1971 in Kaldari village, that they lived together to 1985, that they got three daughters that the respondent deserted her right from 1985 and that the respondent agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards permanent alimony. Petition is allowed as prayed for. A decree is passed for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) against the respondent towards permanent alimony.” 8. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent is silent with regard to her initiating proceedings in the District Court, West Godavari for judicial separation and also for grant of permanent alimony of Rs.30,000/-. The order passed by the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in O.P.No.49 of 1992 indicates that the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent have been staying away. It is nowhere stated in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent that after the decree, she joined with the 1st petitioner to lead marital life, and thereby, the order of judicial separation has become ineffective. The material brought on record indicates that the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent have been living separately from the year 1985. Therefore, the question of the petitioners 1 and 2 harassing the 2nd respondent for bringing additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- in the year 1995 does not arise. 9. In the above background of facts, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.521 of 2008 amounts to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.521 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem are quashed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 30-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.132 of 2009 (Dated : 30-7-2010)