THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.275 of 2010 Date: 23.11.2011 Between: Syed. Nagoor Sharif Santhosh and others. ..... Petitioners. AND The State of A.P., through Police Sirivella of Kurnool Dist rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.275 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda under Section 498A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was referred to police under 156 (3) of Cr.P.C by the Court. Sirivella Police Station registered the complaint against petitioners as First Information Report in Crime No.127 of 2009. The 2nd petitioner is the elder brother of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners 3 & 4 are residents of Kondepi and Gangapalem Villages respectively. All of them seek for the quashing of the First Information Report. 2 . The 2nd respondent refused to receive the notice. No one represents the 2nd respondent. It is deemed that the 2nd respondent has no interest in the petition. 3 . Sri Bajarang Singh Thakoor, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners 1 & 2 are Ayurvedic Medical Practitioners and that they have been practicing medicine at Aurangabad, Maharastra State. The 2nd respondent belongs to Gangapalem while the petitioners 1 & 2 belong to Kondepi. Both the villages are in Prakasam District. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent joined the 1st petitioner after the marriage in June 2004 and went away ostensibly, for a period of one month stay in October, 2004 when her father took her away. It is the case of the petitioners 1 & 2 that the 2nd respondent thereafter refused to join the 1st petitioner declaring that she would live with the 1st petitioner if the 1st petitioner migrates to Gangapalem and not otherwise. 5. The petitioners 1 & 2 used to visit their native place once in a year. In June 2005, petitioners 3 & 4 as elders of the two villages of the petitioners 1 & 2 and the 2nd respondent intervened and chastised the 2nd respondent for not joining her husband. The 2nd respondent was said to be pregnant at that time. The 2nd respondent allegedly agreed to join the husband after she delivered a child. 6 . It is further case of the petitioners that albeit the 2nd respondent delivered a mail child, the 1st petitioner was not even informed about the birth of the child and that in June 2006, during their annual visit, petitioners 1 & 2 made in vain attempt to mediate and convince the 2nd respondent to join the 1st petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioners that in 2007, on account of the mediations by petitioners 1 & 2, the 2nd respondent joined the 1st petitioner at Aurangabad. She was taken to Aurangabad by the brother of the 2nd respondent. She was dropped at Aurangabad on 29-7-2007. On 31-7-2007, when the brother of the 2nd respondent was leaving Aurangabad, the 2nd respondent insisted to go back with her brother. She allegedly executed a letter at that time that she was voluntarily going away from her matrimonial home and that neither her husband nor any relative of her husband was responsible for her going away from Aurangabad. 7. While things stood thus in June 2009, when petitioners 1 & 2 made their annual visit to their native place, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with police. Police called petitioners 1 & 2 and after perusing the letter of the 2nd respondent, police considered that no case was made out. Consequently, a private complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent. 8. This is the gist of the defence. So far as petitioners 3 & 4 are concerned, they are not the members of the family of petitioners 1 & 2 or the 2nd respondent. The 4th petitioner is a Hindu, whereas petitioners 1 & 2 and the 2nd respondent are Muslims. The 3rd petitioner is the resident of Kondepi to which place the petitioners 1 & 2 belong. Petitioner No.4 is a resident of Gangapalem, which is the place of the 2nd respondent. Curiously, no concrete allegations are made against petitioners 3 & 4 in the complaint. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was mearly a passing reference to petitioners 3 & 4 in the complaint. I am afraid that where no clear allegations are made against the petitioners 3 & 4 and no incidents were also referred to against the petitioners 3 & 4, the very complaint against the petitioners 3 & 4 is not maintainable. The complaint against the petitioners 3 & 4 is liable to be quashed. 9. In PARMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF U.P, it was observed that when the prosecution is malafide, malicious and vengenceful to settle the scores of opposite side, the complaint deserves to be quashed though a reading of the allegations of the First Information Report or charge sheet suggest that proceedings would continue. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint of the 2nd respondent is malicious and malafide in the light of her letter to the 1st petitioner that she was voluntarily going away. It may be noticed that the alleged letter of the 2nd respondent is in Marati. The 2nd respondent signed the same in Telugu. It is not clear whether the 2nd respondent singed the letter knowing the contents of the letter full well. Further, she did not refer to this letter in her complaint to the Court. 11. The complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent prima facie made out a case against the petitioners 1 & 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations against the petitioners 1 & 2 are omnibus in nature and cannot be accepted. Indeed, the 2nd respondent did not refer to any dates of the incidents in the complaint. However, the complaint clearly mentioned the years in which the incidents occurred. The complaint also mentioned about the territorial jurisdiction wherein the incident occurred. Some of the allegations constitute a continuous offence as it is the case of the 2nd respondent that the 1st and 2nd petitioners went on ill-treating and beating the 2nd respondent demanding for additional dowry or for divorce. I, therefore, consider that prima facie case as against the petitioners 1 & 2 is made out from the complaint. The complaint does not deserve to be quashed in this background against the petitioners 1 & 2. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. The complaint is quashed as against the petitioners 3 & 4 holding that no prima facie case is made out from the complaint against the petitioners 3 & 4. This petition is dismissed as against the petitioners 1 & 2 holding that prime facie case is made out against the petitioners 1 & 2. This petition is ordered accordingly. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:23.11.2011 mrb