IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 6022 of 2009 Between: 1 P.V.P. Dhanalaxmi W/o. P.S.N. Rao R/o. G-4, Venkatadri Apartments, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad. 2 P.V.P. Kumar S/o. P.S.N. Rao R/o. G-4, Venkatadri Apartments, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad. 3 P.S.N. Rao S/o. Late Subba Rao R/o. G-4, Venkatadri Apartments, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Pooja Pulipaka W/o. P.V.P. Ganapathi R/o. H.No.2-5-499-56, II Floor, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in CCNo.656 of 2009 on the file of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for the offence punishable U/s. 406 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.CHAITANYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 5737 of 2009 Between: 1 P.V.V. Dhanalaxmi W/o. P.S.N. Rao R/o. G-4, Venkatadri Apartments, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad. 2 P.S.N.Rao S/o. Late Subba Rao R/o. G-4, Venkatadri Apartments, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Pooja Pulipaka W/o. Ganpathi Pulipaka R/o. 2-5-499, 56 Nallagutta James Street, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in CCNo.301 of 2009 on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A and 506 of IPC The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.CHAITANYA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.Nos. 6022 and 5737 of 2009 Common Order: Except P.V.P. Ganapathi and P.V.P. Kumar, as the other petitioners are common and the issue involved for determination is also similar, both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2 Crl.P.No. 6022 of 2009 is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 656 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad registered for the offences under sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. 3. (a) The petitioners herein are the parents and younger brother of the husband of the second respondent. The offences alleged are under sections 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC. (b) The case of the complainant, as per the complaint, is that the complainant married A-1 on 24.12.1999; it was a love marriage-cum- arranged marriage; they were blessed with two children; some time after the marriage, the accused started harassing the complainant demanding additional dowry on the pretext that he needs money for going abroad; the parents of the complainant arranged some money and A-1 went to Singapore on 5.12.2000; he stayed there for an year and during that period he never cared about the welfare of the complainant and her children. Thereafter A-1 went to Japan where the complainant joined him on visiting VISA. In Japan A-1 used to ill- treat and beat her demanding additional dowry. Later the couple went to USA where also A-1 started harassing. (c) As per paragraph-6 of the complaint, A-2 and A-3 used to telephone and E-mail A-1 and instigate him to harass the complainant for additional dowry. On 23.11.2007 A-1 came to India for the marriage of the sister of the complainant; where also A-1 quarreled with the complainant and her parents. A complaint was given by her to police. The accused and some others came and requested the complainant to withdraw the complaint stating that they would provide permanent alimony to the complainant and her children. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the parties on 21.12.2007, as per which A-1 to A-4 assured to pay Rs.25.00 Lakhs to the complainant and her two sons towards permanent alimony. (d) Out of that A-1 paid Rs.3.00 Lakhs as advance; for the remaining amount A-1 to A-4 handed-over demand drafts to the complainant for an amount of Rs.14.00 Lakhs and A-2 issued a post dated cheque dated:21.1.2008 for Rs.8.00 Lakhs; A-3 assured that the cheque would be honoured; A-5 attested the MOU and then A-1 left for USA. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, that was returned with an endorsement payment stopped. A-1 to A-4 induced the complainant and they violated the terms of MOU dated:21.12.2007. A-1 to A-5 also filed a private complaint under sections 211,347, 506, 389 and 120-B IPC read with 34 IPC with false allegations against the complainant and her parents. (e) According to the complainant, Offences under section 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC are constituted against all the accused as they all cheated her and her parents and thereby committing breach of terms of MOU dated:21.12.2007. 4. Now the question is under the above facts, whether the offences of 406 and 420 read with 34 IPC are constituted. As already referred, the grievance of the complainant is that the accused induced her to enter into MOU and committed breach of the same by stopping payment under the cheque. 5. Even assuming that the MOU was executed and part of the amount was paid and part of the amount a cheque was issued, it is not in dispute that out of Rs.25.00 Lakhs agreed, the complainant received Rs.17.00 Lakhs – Rs.3.00 Lakhs of cash and Rs.14.00 Lakhs by way of DDs. It is not clear as to under what circumstances the payment of cheque for Rs.8.00 Lakhs was not honoured. In case the payment of cheque was stopped, the remedy available for the complainant is to initiate proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In case, the accused had an intention of cheating the complainant, they would not have paid substantial amount of Rs.17.00 Lakhs. If there is any breach of terms of MOU, it is a cause for civil action. 6. All the above circumstances would show that it is not a fit case to continue the proceedings any further against the petitioners. As already referred, the remedy open for the complainant would be under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or to approach a Civil Court. The averments in the complaint and the civil litigation pending between the parties would show that the present complaint is filed predominantly only to harass the petitioners. Considering all the above circumstances, I hold that it is a case where the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 7. In the result Crl.P.No.6022 is allowed thereby quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 656 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. 8. Crl.P.No. 5737 of 2009 is filed to quash the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No. 301 of 2009 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 506 IPC. 9. (a) The facts, with regard to the marriage between the parties and other developments are referred to while considering Crl.P.No. 6022 of 2009, as stated supra. (b) As per paragraph-5 of the complaint, while the spouses were living in USA, in August, 2005, A-1 beat the complainant and she called the Police at Portland, Oregon; in the same year, during Divali, during a quarrel A-1 beat her 1 ½ years old son mercilessly and threw him in a water tub; later the complainant gave birth to another son in USA. Thereafter also A-1 continued the harassment. (c) As per paragraph-6 of the complainant, except for few days after the marriage, A-1 used to harass the complainant physically and mentally on the instigation of A-2 and A-3, his parents, who are the petitioners herein; that they used to instigate A-1 on telephone and also through E-mails. On 23.11.2007 A-1 came to India for the marriage of her sister and there also A-1 quarreled with the complainant and her parents. (d) As per paragraph-7 of the complaint on 10.12.2007 A-1 came to the house of the parents of the complainant late in the night and asked her to come to his parents house along with children; when the complainant requested for going next morning, A-1 became violent and the parents of the complainant called RAKSHAK POLICE, who advised the parties not to quarrel. A-1 did not change his attitude under the instigation of A-2 and A-3 and he continued harassing the complainant physically and mentally for additional dowry. (e) As per paragraph-8 of the complaint, there was some understanding between the parties at that stage and thereafter A-1 left for USA and from there also he used to harass the complainant. (f) As per paragraph-9 of the complaint, the accused were giving advertisements in the Deccan Chronicle saying that A-1 has already divorced and is in search for a girl and that the accused made threatening calls to her. 10. The allegation against the present petitioners, who were in India is of instigating A-1 to harass the complainant; that, too, while they were in USA. The action of the present complainant of her giving complaint to USA Police and also in India when they were in India would show that there was physical harassment of the complainant. The allegation that the present petitioners were harassing and instigating the complainant over telephone is difficult to accept. There are other allegations like the petitioners attempting to get A-1 married by representing that he has already divorced. Certain material is filed by the complainant during the course of arguments in support her contention that the present petitioners are propagating that A-1 is already divorced. Some more material is also filed to show that the complainant was got arrested and was beat for allegedly misusing the credit card of her husband There is also material to show that the petitioners were harassing the complainant. As such it is not a case for quashing the proceedings against the present petitioners and the present petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result - Crl.P.No.6022 is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No. 656 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and hereby quashed and Crl.P.No. 5737 of 2009 is dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. December 1, 2009. *BVS