THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CRL.P.NO.1134 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR No.1253/200 dated 14.10.2008 under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C.. 3. The petitioners are Doddapaneni Aparna (A-4), Doddapaneni Raghuram (A-5) and D.Mohan Kirshna (A-6). 4. The material on record disclose that the complainant Kandula Srinivasa Tagore married one Bathula Padmanjali, A-1 in the complaint, on 29.7.2001 at Hyderabad and later they left for United States of America. They were blessed with a girl child Neha Reddy. At U.S.A., disputes arose between them during year 2008 and petition for divorce, with mutual consent was filed and it appears that some settlement was arrived at. From the record, it could be further seen that the father of Ms. Padmanajali, by name Mr. Parameshwar Reddy, also filed a complaint against his son-in-law i.e., Kandula Srinivasa Tagore in FIR 1073/08 on the file of P.S. Sarooronagar. In the complaint, the complainant Kandula Srinivas Tagore, made allegations against his parents-in-law and wife. A reading of the complaint would reveal that he joined the present petitioners in the subject column and in the last paragraph and sought for punishing them. How the said persons are related to the accused and what is the nexus between them and what is their involvement is, and how their acts would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. are not mentioned and particularly there are no specific allegations against him and only omnibus allegations are made. For better appreciation, the entire complaint is extracted as under: “ To The Station House Officer, Police Station; Saroornagar, Cyberabad, RR District-AP. Sub: Complaint of Extortion, Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating Etc., against Bathula Padmanjali, Parameshwar Reddy, Janaki Laxmi, D.Aparna, Raghuram & Mohana Krishna – Reg. Respected Sir, “ I humbly submit that my marriage was solemnized on 29.07.2001 with Bathula Padmanjali at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. She had completed BDS in 1999. I was working in USA since 1998 as software engineer. She accompanied me to USA on 20-08-2001. She lived there up to February 2008. I got her studied for 3 more years to enable her to practice. She joined as Dental Surgeon in Dec. 2003. Thereafter, her interest towards me was decreasing gradually. She was totally being guided by her parents: Parameshwar Reddy & Janaki Laxmi, who were forcing us to send them all our earnings for investment in real estate. Parameshwar Reddy started nurse training centre for placement in USA during 2006 in Himayathnagar, Hyd. He asked me to join him but I refused. On my refusal, both were instigating my wife to separate from me. She too was lacking any interest in matrimonial life and was preparing for separation. I accompanied my wife to Hyderabad in Feb.’08, for her brother’s marriage. After that marriage, she, her parents and above named persons started forcing me for our divorce. They harassed, compelled and made me to execute a divorce settlement deed under threat & fear of getting me and my family members jailed by falsely alleging cruelty & harassment upon my wife. While doing so, they had absolutely no intention of fulfilling and discharging the liabilities put upon my wife and simply wanted to extract my money and property under said settlement. A petition for divorce with mutual consent was filed, as such. We went back to USA in March, 2008 separately and were living separately. I vacated joint residence consequently. I allowed my wife to withdraw $35,000/- from my bank A/c. I returned back to India in July, 2008. On attending the divorce case hearing on 04.09.08, I knew that Parameshwar Reddy had secretly filed withdrawal of mutual consent petition Dt:11-08-08 as if my wife’s GPA. They assured that he will take it back on depositing Rs.35,26,600/- (equivalent to $80,000) in my minor daughter’s name. Hence, I deposited Rs.35,26,600/- in Andhra Bank as FDR favouring my baby: Neha Reddy on 09.09.08, by debiting my personal SB A/c 012210100002111. They dishonestly got included his name as guardian on my minor daughter in FDR though her both parents are alive. Despite demands, he is refusing to get his name removed from guardianship of my minor daughter, with fraudulent intention of swallowing my money deposited in minor daughter’s name. My wife, her parents and above named others planned together to put me to loss illegally and to swallow my money deceitfully. I paid $3500/- to my wife, vacated joint residence & deposited $80,000/- in daughter’s name, as per settlement deed Dtd:2802-08. I left & relinquished my right/title/interest in flat & 2303 Sq. Yds land in Medchal, subject to my wife’s paying Rs.23,60,453/- within 6 months from 03.03.08, yet she has not paid it under instigation & guidance of above named persons who enjoy my property illegally. Had they not cheated & assured payment, I would not have relinquished rights in those immovable properties. While my wife is in USA since Mar. ’08, her father Parmeshwar Reddy filed false complaint in Court and got registered FIR 1073/08 u/Ss 498A, 406, 420 IPC at PS Saroornagar. Under its threat and challenging of our arrest, remand and jail, they are visiting our house frequently, threatening me to forgo petition/settlement mentioned Rs.23,60,453/- and to pay them further Rs.20,00,000/- to have the divorce decreed and to get rid of arrests & jail in pending FIR. I request you sir to please take necessary legal action against the above named culprits Bathula Padmanjali, Parameshwar Reddy, Janaki Laxmi, D.Aparna, Raghuram and Mohana Krishna; get them punished for their offences and protect me for their illegal acts. Thanking you Sir, Kandula Srinivasa Ragore, s/o Papireddy, 34 years R/o 10-68, New Gaddiannaram Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd.” 5. A reading of the above complaint, as already noted above, would disclose that except mentioning in subject column and in the last paragraph, no specific allegation was made against them. In the complaint the allegations against the present petitions are that “after the marriage, she, her parents and above named persons started forcing me for our divorce. .. . My wife, her parents and above named others planned together to put me to loss illegally and to swallow my money deceitfully.” Except in these two sentences, there is no reference of the petitioners in the entire complaint. In the entire complaint, the allegations were only against the father and mother of his wife and while referring to them, the complainant used the pronoun ‘they’. Reading the entire complaint would show that the allegations are only against the father and mother of his wife and not against the present petitioners. As already noted above, there is no nexus in the complaint, how the present petitioners were involved in the case and how their acts would constitute the offence punishable under the above said sections and hence no prima facie case is made out against them in the entire complaint for registering FIR. 6. Therefore, I am of the considered view that even by reading of the entire complaint, the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused and the allegations do not disclose any cognizable office or commission of any act. Hence, permitting the investigation against them, based on the complaint, would be nothing but abuse of process of law. 7. The Apex Court in the decision reported in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. GOURISHETTY MAHESH[1] held as under: “ . . . For example, where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitutes any offence or make out a case against the accused or allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused or where there is express legal bar provided in any of the provisions of the code or in any other enactment under which a criminal proceedings is initiated or sufficient material to show that the criminal proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Court may step in.” 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the FIR No.1253/200 dated 14.10.2008 on the file of Police Station Saroornagar, SHO, Cyberabad, against the petitioners, who are A-4, A-5 and A-6, is quashed. 9. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- 12—10—2011 [1] 2010(2) ALD (Crl) 584 (SC)