*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU +Crl.P. No.1334 OF 2007 % 04.02.2010 #Jaladanki Ranganayakamma ….Petitioner Vs. $ State of AP rep. By the Public Prosecutor and another. …. Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri R. Chandra Reddy Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2nd respondent: Sri K.V. Simhadri <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 383 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1334 OF 2007 Date: 04.02.2010 Between: Jaladanki Ranganayakamma ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1334 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 2nd accused (A-2) under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.522 of 2005 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore relating to offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 who is not a party to this petition, is husband of the defacto- complainant/2nd respondent. A-2 is widowed mother of A-1. Marriage of A-1 with the 2nd respondent took place on 08.11.1989. They have one female child and a male child. On report given by the 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Women police station, Nellore registered case in Crime No.22 of 2004 and issued F.I.R on 04.09.2004. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 in the lower court on 07.11.2005. It may not be out of place to mention here that originally the case was booked against two other persons who are uncle and aunt of A-1 and they filed Writ Petition No.5937 of 2005 in this Court questioning the same. This Court by order dated 18.08.2005 quashed the F.I.R as against them. While allowing the Writ Petition, this Court directed the investigating officer to complete investigation against A-1 and A-2 and file charge sheet immediately. It is alleged by the defacto-complainant that she stayed with her husband till April, 1993 and that from the date of she joining her husband, A-1 and A-2 started harassing her on the pretext of lesser dowry demanding her to bring more dowry from her parents and that when she expressed her inability to do so, A-3 and A-4 used to instigate A-1 and A-2 to harass her. It is further alleged that after A-1 left for U.S.A for better employment in April, 1993, she stayed with A-2 at Gudur from April, 1993 to June, 1993 and that during that period A-2 harassed her for brining more dowry. There is no dispute that in June, 1993, the 2nd respondent joined A-1 at U.S.A. It is further alleged that A-2 went to U.S.A in 2nd half of the year 1994 and stayed there for four months and during that period also A-2 harassed her to arrange for additional dowry. It is alleged that during October, 1997, A-1 visited India and during that time A-1 was instigated by A-2 to discard the 2nd respondent by way of divorce and it resulted in drastic change in A-1’s attitude. There is no dispute that during June, 2000, the 2nd respondent, A-1 and children came to India and on 07.07.2000 A-1 left for U.S.A leaving the 2nd respondent and children at A-2’s house. But, the 2nd respondent and her children stayed in the 2nd respondent’s parents’ house at Gudur from 07.07.2000 onwards. The 2nd respondent further alleges that A-2 never allowed her to stay in her house at Guduru from July, 2000 upto July, 2003 when A-2 left for U.S.A. Subsequently, the children were taken away by A-1. to U.S.A. On 15.09.2003, the 2nd respondent received judgment in C.No.03-C-02-011562 dated 20.08.2003 of the Circuit Court, Baltimore County, Maryland, U.S.A granting divorce to A-1 and 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent challenged exparte divorce decree granted by U.S.A. Court in O.S.No.31 of 2004 before the District Judge, Nellore. The District Judge, Nellore by judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 dismissed the suit. It is stated that as against decision of the District Judge, Nellore in O.S.No.31 of 2004, the 2nd respondent filed appeal in this Court and it is pending. It is contended by Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-2 relying on Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica[1] that allegations against A-2 are general in nature and that there are no specific allegations of harassment of the defacto-complainant by A-2. It is further contended that allegations of the prosecution do not attract cruelty as contemplated by first limb of Explanation to Section 498A I.P.C and that at best those allegations may attract second limb of Explanation to Section 498A I.P.C and that in any event, charge sheet filed by the police against A-2 is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C because offence under Section 498A I.P.C is punishable with three years imprisonment and period of limitation for filing charge sheet for such an offence is three years from date of the offence. As can be seen from allegations in F.I.R as well as the charge sheet, there was no connection or contact between the 2nd respondent and A-2 from 07.07.2000 onwards. From 07.07.2000, A-2 has been living in her parents’ house at Gudur. There is no allegation either in F.I.R or in charge sheet that there was any demand for additional dowry and resulting harassment to the defacto-complainant by A-2 after 07.07.2000. Allegations of harassment by way of demand of additional dowry were made against A-2 from the year 1989 to the year 1993 and again in 2nd half of the year 1994 and again in October, 1997. There was no meeting of A-2 with the 2nd respondent subsequent to 07.07.2000. There is no allegation of harassment of the 2nd respondent by A-2 at any time subsequent to October, 1997. Therefore, it is contended that charge sheet filed by the police on 07.11.2005 is clearly barred by limitation. On the other hand, it is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that it is a case of continuous harassment of the defacto-complainant by A-1 and A-2 till now and that apart from harassment for the sake of dowry physically, even after 07.07.2000. A-1 went to the extent of obtaining exparte decree of divorce from U.S. Court in the year 2003 and it resulted in lot of mental agony to the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that even after this Court granting interim maintenance in the pending appeal against O.S.No.31 of 2004, A-1 did not pay any money towards maintenance and that it is nothing but continuous harassment for the 2nd respondent. It may be a fact that because of subsequent events as stated above, the 2nd respondent might be feeling harassed because of the activities or omissions of A-1. Of course, this observation is made without intending to express any opinion in so far as case against A-1 is concerned. But, at the same time, when there were no contacts between A-2 and the 2nd respondent subsequent to 07.07.2000 and when there are no allegations of demand for dowry by A-2 or at A-2’s instigation subsequent to October, 1997, it cannot be said that it is a continuous cause of action of harassment in so far as A-2 also. This Court is of the opinion that the alleged harassment of the 2nd respondent by A-2 for the sake of additional dowry was only upto October, 1997 and not thereafter and that there was no contact between the two persons subsequent to 07.07.2000. Opening words of Section 469 Cr.P.C read:- “The period of limitation, in relation to an offender shall commence” – The above wording of Section 469 Cr.P.C gives an indication that period of limitation has to be adjudged in relation to each of the offenders separately and not in relation to all the offenders put together. Period of limitation has to be reckoned qua ‘an offender’ and not qua ‘a case’. If allegations in F.I.R and charge sheet are read along with Section 469 Cr.P.C, it is evident that period of limitation for prosecuting A-2 for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act commenced from 08.11.1989 and ended by October, 1997 or at the most by 07.07.2000. Charge sheet in this case was filed in the lower court after three years thereof on 07.11.2005. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that charge sheet filed by the police against A-2 for the above offences is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Thus, irrespective of the facts whether allegations against A-2 are general or specific and whether they are true or false on facts, A-2 is entitled for relief in this petition as charge sheet in so far as she is concerned, is barred by limitation. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.522 of 2005 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore in so far as the petitioner/A-2 is concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:04.02.2010. Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. //By Order// Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1334 OF 2007 Date: 04.02.2010 Gk. [1] (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 383