HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11272 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.141 of 2010 on the file of the VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, taken on file for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Briefly, the facts are that basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant dated 10.2.2009, the police, Hanmakonda P.S., Warangal, registered Crime No.53 of 2009 against the petitioner herein and other accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and, after completion of due investigation, they laid charge sheet against the other accused before the VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, as the petitioner-accused No.1 is absconding. Having taken cognizance of the offences, the learned Magistrate numbered the same as C.C.No.141 of 2010 and, after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the other accused of the offences for which they were tried, vide judgment dated 13.07.2010, recording reasoning for their acquittal which runs as follows: “P.W.1 (Naseem Fathima) is the complainant. She deposed that there were petty disputes between her and her husband and at the time of marriage, no dowry was given and there is of demand of additional dowry also. She does not know the contents of complaint and the facts stated in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and she does not know what police have written. This witness did not say anything about the harassment and about the dowry also. Hence, none of the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are proved from the evidence of this witness. P.W.2 (Khaja Nizamuddin) is the father of P.W.1. He deposed about the marriage of P.W.1, but he did not say anything with regard to the dowry and about the harassment for additional dowry etc. He turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.3 (Ayesha Nizam) is the mother of P.W.1. She also deposed about the marriage of P.W.1, but she did not say anything about the dowry, additional dowry and harassment. She also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and both P.Ws.2 and 3 denied all the suggestions given by APP. From the evidence of all the witnesses, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not proved. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.” Heard. The petitioner herein is husband of P.W.1-defacto complainant. Even at the time of her examination before the trial Court, P.W.1 has not stated anything regarding harassment by the petitioner. P.Ws.2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-law of P.W.1 respectively, also have not stated anything about the dowry and harassment for additional dowry and they turned hostile and denied all the suggestions given by the A.P.P. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is nothing against the petitioner herein to proceed further in this case and the proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.141 of 2010 on the file of the VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, are hereby quashed and the miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 19th August, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Petition No.l1272 of 2010 (Allowed) 19th August, 2011 cbs