THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.181 of 2009 Dated:05th Agusut, 2010 Between: 1. Pujari Leela & Anr. ….Petitioners and 1. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.181 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A2-Pujari Leela and A4-Pujari Ashok in C.C.No.871 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, to quash the proceedings therein so far as they are concerned. 2. Poojari Sahitha-2nd respondent/de facto complainant was married to Poojari Ravindran (A1) on 20.12.1991. At the time of marriage, parents of Poojari Sahitha gave cash of Rs.2.00 Lakhs and presented 10 tolas of gold and one Bajaj Chetak Scooter to Poojari Ravindran (A1). After the marriage, Poojari Sahitha joined her husband/A1. According to her, her husband, at the instigation of the petitioners herein and another, harassed her mentally and physically on every flimsy household issue and also harassed her on the ground that she was looking like a dol. She along with her husband/A1 stayed separately in Railway quarters. Despite her staying separately with her husband/A1 in railway quarters, the petitioners herein along with another, who have been arrayed as A2 to A4, instigated her husband/A1 to harass her mentally and physically. She got two male children out of the wedlock and they are aged 15 years and 12 years respectively. After the birth of the 2nd child, she returned to her parents home being not able to bear the harassment in the hands of her husband/A1. After some assurance from her husband/A1, she re- joined with him, but she did not find any change in the attitude of her husband/A1. Her husband/A1 took the children and went to Hyderabad, from where he used to make threatening calls to her. On 04.06.2008 she alone went to the house of her husband/A1, but her husband/A1 did not permit her to enter into the house and beat her with an iron rod and caused injuries. She managed to escape from the clutches of her husband/A1 and came back to her parental home along with her children to Hanumakonda. She presented a complaint on 09.06.2008 before the Station House Officer, Hanamkonda P.S. The Station House Officer, Hanumakonda P.S. received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.255 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 324 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued FIR. After due investigation, a charge-sheet came to be presented before VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal. The learned Magistrate took the charge- sheet on file as CC No.871 of 2008. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioners/A2 and A4 with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice sent to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant returned un-served with an endorsement ‘addressee refused. Hence, returned’. In view of the said endorsement, it is treated that the notice on the 2nd respondent has been served. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in no way concerned with the marital life of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with her husband, who has been arrayed as A1. A further submission has been made that even the charge-sheet averments indicate that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant along with her husband/A1, has been residing separately in Railway Quarters. Therefore, there would be no occasion for the petitioners to interfere with the marital life of the 2nd respondent with her husband/A1. 6. It is also brought to my notice that A1-Poojari Ravindran died on 09.03.2009 and the case against him stood abated. I have gone through the charge-sheet averments. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant shifted her residence to railway quarters, where she stayed with her husband/A1 and gave birth to two children, who are aged 15 and 12 years respectively, by the date of her presenting the complaint before the police. It can be inferred from the material brought on record that the 2nd respondent and her husband/A1 were stayed together at railway station since 12 years prior to her presenting the complaint before the Police. Except the allegation that the petitioners herein instigated A1 to harass the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, there are no specific instances of harassment attributable to the petitioners herein. The husband, who has been arrayed as A1, is stated to be no more and the case against him is stated to have been abated. In the absence of any specific instances of harassment or particulars of instigation, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners herein, more particularly, after the death of A1, against whom specific instances of harassment have been attributed, amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.871 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, in respect of the petitioners herein, who are A2 and A4, only. The interim stay granted on 22.01.2009 stands vacated. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:05th August, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.181 of 2009 Dated:05th August, 2010