THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3844 of 2008 And 1864 of 2010 C O M M O N O R D E R: Since the parties in these two petitions and the facts are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. These two Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioner-accused to quash the proceedings against him in F.I.R.No.103 of 2009 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kolpally village, Peddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, dated 02.09.2009 and FIR No.204 of 2008 in C.C.S.R.No.1405 of 2008 dated 10.6.2008 on the file of Station House Officer, Vikarabad Police Station, Vikarabad, R.R.District. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Defacto-complainant married the first accused in the year 2000 and they lived together happily for some time and subsequently all the accused started harassment demanding additional dowry. Hence, the complainant lodged two complaints against the petitioner-herein and other accused. Admittedly, two complaints were lodged by the defacto-complainant, one complaint is on 09.06.2008, and the other complaint is on 02.09.2008. Interestingly, when the complaint lodged on 09.06.2008 was stayed by this Court, pending stay, the second complaint is lodged by the defacto- complainant almost on the basis of the same allegations mentioned in the earlier complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint does not disclose any specific allegations against the petitioner herein to attract an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. For the better appreciation, the complaints filed by the defacto-complainant dated 09.06.2008 and 02.09.2009 are hereby reproduced. The complaint dated 09.06.2008 reads as under: “Smt.Aliabegum, W/o Ruknuddin complained stating that she is a house wife and residing at Siddloor village and her mother’s village is Kotapalli village Peddamur Mandal. She got marriage during the year 2000 with Ruknuddin, son of Jahangeer Sabu of Siddloor village at Kotapalli village before the elders and other relatives. At the time of marriage my parents have given one Auto, Two tulas gold, ten tulas silver patta chains and Rs.15,000/- cash and Rs.20,000/- worth of utensils. Apart from the above then and there so many times some amounts have also given. Approximately we lived together for a period of two years. During the period of my family life with my husband Ruknuddin, my mother-in-law Fathimabee, brother-in-law Ahamed and sister-in-law Farzana Begum, brother-in-law of Ruknuddin, Sri Sharfuddin, S/o Alam Sabu and his wife Khaja bee were beaten me number of times. They started harassing me by beating, and abusing. Since one year they demanding to bring Rs.1.00 lakh from mother’s house. Since one and half years back Ruknuddin told me that I will go to Hyderabad and come back as and when time permits and insisted me to stay at my mother’s house. But he did not return from Hyderabad and got second marriage and leaving family life by leaving me at my mother’s house. Hence, I request you to take appropriate action.” The complaint dated 10.08.2009 reads as under: ”The complainant is the wife of the accused No.1 and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2000 and after the marriage they lead their marital life at Siddhalur village, Nawabpet Mandal. The parents of the complainant on the demand of the accused paid Rs.15,000/- cash and gave 2 ½ tulas gold, 15 tulas silver, one auto worth Rs.40,000/- and other house articles worth Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.1 in the marriage. The complainant and the accused No.1 lived happily for a period of 6 months and thereafter accused started harassment to the complainant to bring additional dowry amount and due to which case has been registered against the accused No.1 and his relatives in the year 2002 and the case has been compromised between the complainant and the accused No.1 on the assurance given by the accused No.1 that he will look after the complainant well in future without any harassment. The accused No.2 is the mother on the accused No.1. Accused No.4 and 6 are sisters of accused No.1, accused No.3 is the brother-in-lawof accused No2, accused No.5 is the father of accused No.3 and accused No.7 is the brother of accused No.1. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 again started harassment to the complainant since two years to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/-. The accused No.3 to 6 instigated the accused No.1 for causing harassment to the complainant. All the accused harassed the complainant mentally and physically on her failure to comply the demand. The accused No.1 did not change his attitude and at last necked out from the house and given one room for her residence to live separately at Siddalur village and gave 2 acres of land to the complainant about two years back. The accused No.1 again started harassment to bring additional dowry from her parents house and threatened that he will take back the said land and room if the dowry is not complied and harassed the complainant mentally and physically and again necked out from the said room and forcibly brought the complainant to the house of her parents at Kotpally village on 21.1.2009 and threatened with dire consequences.” Further, it is seen from the records that in the year 2002, in the first complaint lodged by the defacto-complainant in which it is stated that due to intervention of the elders the matter is settled between her and the petitioner herein and subsequently they lived together, for some time and she lodged another complaint. On the entire reading of the complaint, the main allegation is that the petitioner herein directed the defacto-complainant to be with the mother-in-law while he left to Hyderabad and subsequently he married another lady. To substantiate the same, not even the name of the person, whom he married is mentioned in the complaint and further as far as the allegation of demand of dowry and other things are concerned, except some bald allegations, there is no specific date and events given by the defacto-complainant. More interestingly, the second complaint lodged by the same defacto-complainant when it is compared with the earlier complaint, totally the contents are contradictory to each other and further the defacto- complainant knowing fully well a complaint is already stayed by this Court, lodged the second complaint for the period for which earlier complaint was lodged including the remaining period in her next complaint, which clearly shows that the defacto-complainant tried to abuse the process of law by way of making more complaints either before the police or before the Court. It is well settled law in an offence under Section 498-A IPC the allegations should be specific in nature and also it should be in connection with the demand of dowry, mere domestic quarrels or the second marriage cannot be a ground to invoke the provisions of 498-A IPC. The entire reading of both the complaints and also the complaint, which is available, registered in the year 2002 the complaints are contradictory with each other regarding the period and the date of offence nothing is mentioned specifically. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the continuance of investigation by the Investigating Officer in the present cases, no purpose will be served and unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the petitioner herein. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to interfere with the complaints lodged by the defacto-complainant. Accordingly, the proceedings in FIR No.204 of 2008 in C.C.S.R.No.1405 of 2008 dated 10.6.2008 on the file of Station House Officer, Vikarabad Police Station, Vikarabad, R.R.District and F.I.R.No.103 of 2009 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kolpally village, Peddamul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, dated 02.09.2009 are hereby quashed. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 29th June, 2010. PNV