THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.3086 OF 2008 ORDER: This application is filed by A-4 to A-6 in C.C.No.164 of 2008 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Hyderabad. The accused were charged for an offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. A complaint was lodged by one Vasavi, who is said to be wife of the A-1 contending that her marriage was performed on 13-05-2004 with A-1 and at that time he was working in New Zealand. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.5 lakh and other articles were presented. From the 4th day of the marriage, A-2 to A-6 demanded her parents that all the properties should be written in the name of A-1. A-1 did not take the complainant to New Zealand and finally she went to Auckland on 22-07-2005 and stayed there with A-1 and she also joined in a private firm and she was ill-treated by A-1. A-1 was having illegal contact with one lady by name Julie whom he has married her earlier. A-1 subjected her to mental torture. A-2 to A-6 harassed her for transfer of the properties in the name of A- 1 and demanded additional dowry. After investigation into the above facts, a charge sheet was filed and it goes to show that after the marriage some household articles were sent. It was further alleged that A-2 to A-6 harassed for an additional dowry on phone. He claims to have returned to India on 11- 12-2005 after she came in June-2005. Evidently, there is no allegation to show that she lived along with the petitioners herein who are A-4 to A-6. A-4 residing in a different house at Habsiguda with her husband and A-5 and A-6 residing at Gaddiannaram. It was pleaded that petitioners 1 and 3 are the sisters of A-1 who are married long time back. It was also clear from the statement of PW.1 that money was borrowed by A-1 from one Kiran and it was being demanded on phone. It was also further pleaded that on 25-03- 2009 a divorce is said to have been obtained by the complainant in a Family Court at Auckland. They are said to have separated in December-2006 as per the decree. But the present complaint has been given by the complainant on 20-12-2006 after having obtained the decree for “divorce”. It is therefore quite clear having obtained the divorce from the Auckland court claiming to have living separately from August- 2006, the present charge against the petitioners herein is nothing but harassment and abuse of process of law. It appears to be essentially a dispute with A-1 with regard to transfer of her property. There is no material to show that by a phone the petitioners have harassed the complainant. Therefore, when for a longer time the petitioner/ complainant had left to Auckland and after marriage stayed with her husband and parents-in-law appears to be very short, I feel that any further proceedings against the present petitioners will only cause injustice to them and it is a clear case of abuse of process of law and the material on record does not substantially show even prima facie an offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is a fit case where the proceedings against the petitioners are to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 26-07-2011 TSNR