IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6082 OF 2008 Between : M.Chandrar Sekhara Rao and others. .... PETITIOERS/A.1 to A.5 A N D State of A.P. rep.by P.P. and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6082 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’), is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.953 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners herein are A.1 to A.5 in C.C.No.953 of 2008. On the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2 herein, police registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2007 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 440, 506, 511 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act read with Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Now the point for determination is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.953 of 2008. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed M.C.No.26 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to herself and her son. After adducing the evidence on both sides, the learned Judge dismissed the said case and therefore, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint only to harass the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant urged that A.1 being the husband of respondent No.2 harassed her mentally through phone. During the pendency of M.C.No.26 of 2005 and H.M.O.P.No.235 of 2004 the alleged incident alleged has taken place, which is the subject matter in C.C.No.953 of 2008; and that the averments in the complaint are true and therefore, the question of filing false complaint as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable. 6. As seen from the averments in the complaint, the de facto complainant who is respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1. A dispute arose between them leading to filing of Maintenance Case by the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Divorce Petition. H.M.O.P.No.235 of 2004 filed by petitioner No.1 / A.1 which was allowed on 19.02.2009. 7. The alleged complaint is with regard to alleged offence occurred on 09.02.2007 on a private complaint filed by respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the police, who in turn registered the same as a case in Crime No.38 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 440, 506, 511 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act 8. On registering First Information Report, and after completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet. The petitioners now came forward with this petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.953 of 2008 on the ground that the complaint is a motivated one. The facts narrated in the complaint, is for the alleged offence on 09.02.2007 i.e., during the pendency of the Divorce Petition and Maintenance Case. 9. As seen from the recitals in the complaint, the petitioners in particular, petitioner No.1 made telephone calls and threatened respondent No.2 / de facto complainant with dire consequences. It is also alleged that on 09.02.2007, when petitioner No.1 came to the city for attending Maintenance Case, went to the house of the parents of respondent No.2 and assaulted her. Soon after the alleged assault, the present complaint was filed on 14.03.2007, which was received by the police on 28.03.2007 on the endorsement made by the learned Magistrate under Section156 (3) Cr.P.C. Unless and until full-fledged trial is taken up in due course of time, any finding about the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the complaint is premature. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.953 of 2007. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J MARCH 28, 2011. YVL