THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.4092 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Criminal Petition is ﬁled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.84 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. 2 The second respondent is the de facto complainant herein. On the complaint lodged by her a case is registered, investigation was done and ﬁnal report has been ﬁled charge sheeting the petitioner herein for the oﬀence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC in Cr.No.77 of 2007 on the file of Gollaprolu P.S. 3 The second respondent was married to the petitioner herein on 31.05.1987. On 09.10.2005 she left the matrimonial home and in that connection the petitioner ﬁled a complaint, who is the husband of the second respondent. After issuing notice, seeking divorce, the petitioner ﬁled O.P.No.95 of 2007 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam for grant of divorce against the second respondent herein. The said O.P. was ﬁled on 02.02.2007. Thereafter, this complaint was ﬁled on 19.07.2007 alleging harassment for dowry against the petitioner, his parents, brother and sister. In the aforesaid complaint, at the stage of investigation itself, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu made a request to delete the names of the accused 2 to 4 stating that there is no evidence in support of the complaint that they harassed and ill-treated the complainant. Thereafter, the investigation was proceeded with and ﬁnal report has been ﬁled only against the petitioner herein. 4 In this petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the contents of the ﬁnal report, there is no allegation of demand of dowry by the petitioner and in fact, the de facto complainant i.e. the second respondent herein is a member of Satsangh Society at Visakhapatnam and she took debts from members of the society and relatives and is habituated to lead lavish life. When she was asked to clear all the debts secured by her, this false complaint has been ﬁled. It is stated that even as per the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the same did not disclose any allegation of demand or harassment for dowry by the petitioner. 5 On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant – second respondent have submitted that in view of the demand of dowry by the petitioner the complaint was lodged and in view of the ﬁnal report ﬁled, it is a matter for trial, but there is no case for quashing the said proceedings at this stage. 6 In this case, it is to be noticed that the complaint was lodged alleging harassment and demand for dowry against the petitioner, his parents, brother and sister of the petitioner. At the crime stage itself, the investigating oﬃcer has addressed to the Sub Divisional Oﬃcer, Kakinada stating that the evidence that was collected during the course of investigation did not disclose any oﬀence in support of the complaint that there was any harassment and ill-treatment for dowry. Even a perusal of the ﬁnal report ﬁled in the said crime, based on which the present case is taken cognisance of, discloses no ingredients of harassment or demand for dowry by the petitioner. The ﬁnal report itself indicates that the second respondent took debts from some of her relatives, friends and members of Satsangh Society by way of hand loans at highest rate of interest and was unable to pay back such debts. It is stated that on the said allegation the petitioner has demanded her to pay back such debts from whom the second respondent secured by way of hand loans. Such a demand cannot be equated to a demand or any harassment for dowry, within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC, as the same does not attract the ingredients of the said Section of law. Further, in this case it is to be noticed that against the second respondent there is an allegation that she secured debts by way of hand loans from her friends, relatives and members of the Satsangh Society at highest rate of interest and was habituated to lead lavish life and ultimately she was unable to pay back such debts. On such allegations she left the matrimonial home and thereafter the petitioner herein ﬁled an OP seeking divorce vide OP No.95 of 2007 before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam on 02.02.2007. In that view of the matter, it appears only as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for grant of divorce, the present false complaint is ﬁled. Therefore, if the proceedings are allowed to go on, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that it is a ﬁt case for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner. 8 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.84 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Pithapuram, East Godavari District are hereby quashed. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 23.11.2011 Kvsn