THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition Nos.669 of 2008 and 5573 of 2010 Dated:28th July, 2010 Crl.Petition No.669 of 2008: Between: 1. Mohd. Iqbal (A3) & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1. State of A.P., by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** Crl.Petition No.5573 of 2010 Between: 1. Mir Abdul Atir Gayyur & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition Nos.669 of 2008 and 5573 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions have been taken out under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code by A1 to A5 and A7 to 10 in C.C.No.1138 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, with a prayer to quash the proceedings therein. More precisely, Crl. Petition No.669 of 2008 has been filed by A3, A5, A7, A8 and A9 and Crl. Petition No.5573 of 2010 has been filed by A1, A2, A4 and A10. 2. Smt.Zakia Muzaffar Ali @ Zakia Fatimah-2nd respondent and Mir Abdul Atir Gayyur (A1) are wife and husband. Mir Firasat Ali (A2) and Smt.Afsar Yasmeen (A4) are parents of Mir Abdul Atir Gayyur (A1). A5 Smt.Sabiya Nasreen @ Yasmeen and A8-Samra Farheen are sisters and whereas A6-Mir Yaser Arafath, A7 Mir Zaki Shahzoor, A9 Mir Mohd. Ali Osama and A10 Mir Ehab Ayeman are brothers of A1 Mir Abdul Atir Gayyur. A3 Mohd. Iqbal is the person who brought marriage alliance for Smt.Zakia Muzaffar Ali @ Zakia Fatimah-2nd respondent with A1. The marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 Mir Abdul Atir Gayyur was performed on 02.08.2004 as per Muslim personal law. 2nd respondent presented a report before the Station House Officer, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad City, on 03.10.2006 alleging inter alia that she was married to A1 on 02.08.2004 as per Muslim customs at Hyderabad and at the time of the marriage, her parents had given 25 tolas of Gold, 10 tolas of Silver ornaments and Jehez articles worth Rs.3.00 Lakhs at the instance of her in-laws (A2 and A4). After the marriage, she joined her husband (A1) with all gold, silver and Jehez articles. She had miserable life with her husband for two months. Thereafter, she and her husband (A1) left for K.S.A. Damman. It is further alleged in the report that she was beaten blue and black by her husband (A1) on the provocation of his parents (A2 and A4). She withstood the harassment with a fond hope of change in the attitude of her husband (A1). She gave birth to two children out of the wedlock. On 30.07.2006 she along with her husband (A1) and the two children returned to Hyderabad and stayed in her in-laws house. Her husband and her in-laws continued their attitude even after returning to Hyderabad and ill-treated her mentally and physically and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.25.00 Lakhs from her parents to buy a flat at Hyderabad. On 02.10.2006 her husband (A1) beat her with high-heels cheppal on her head and caused bleeding injury and threatened her to kill, if his demands are not fulfilled by her parents. Her in-laws supported her husband in harassing her. The Station House Officer, Humayun Nagar P.S., registered a case in Crime No.353 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 324 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While the case was pending, some mediation took place and the 2nd respondent stated before the Investigating Officer about the mediation. The mediation was not fruitful and therefore, the 2nd respondent along with the two children stayed with her parents. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Humayun Nagar P.S., after due investigation, laid charge-sheet in Crime No.353 of 2006 against 3 accused persons viz., Mir Abdul Atir Gayyur (A1); Mir Firasath Ali (A2) and Smt.Afsar Yasmeen (A3) before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as CC No.940 of 2007. 3. 2nd respondent Smt.Zakia Muzaffar Ali @ Zakia Fatimah-de facto complainant presented a complaint before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, on 25.01.2007, reiterating her grievances ventilated in the report presented before the Station House Officer, Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad City and added one incident which occurred on the midnight of 23.01.2007, wherein A2, A3, A9 and A10 along with others came upon her and demanded her to sign on Khula papers and when she refused to sign those papers, they hurled liquor bottles on the main door of her parents’ house. It is further averred in the complaint that the accused retained her Zehez articles, jewellary, electronic items and gold ornaments weighing 15 tolas. Her complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills P.S., registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 143, 148, 498-A, 406, 506 r/w.149 IPC and took-up investigation. After completing the investigation, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills P.S., Hyderabad, filed charge-sheet against 10 accused persons in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C.C.No.1138 of 2007. Hence, these two Criminal Petitions by the accused under Section 482Cr.P.C. with the prayer stated supra. 4. Despite notice being served on the 2nd respondent, she did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State in both the petitions. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent having filed a repot before the Station House Officer, Humayun Nagar P.S., Hyderabad, resorted to file a private complaint before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the same set of allegations and the said complaint came to be forwarded to the Banjara Hills P.S., Hyderabad, and thereupon, the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills P.S., Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2007 and therefore, the registration of Crime No.86 of 2007 of Banjara Hills P.S., on the self- same facts, which formed the basis for registration of Crime No.353 of 2006 by the Humayun Nagar P.S., Hyderabad, amounts to abuse of process of law and thus, the petitions deserve to be allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1138 of 2007 on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, relatable to Crime No.86 of 2007 of Banjara Hills P.S. are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel, by drawing my attention to the contents of the complaint presented by the 2nd respondent before XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, on 25.01.2007, contends that the participation of A1, A4, A5,A6, A7 and A8 has not been stated in the incident said to have been occurred on 23.01.2007 and therefore, the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1138 of 2007 are liable to be quashed. He would also contend that continuing the proceedings against all the accused on some omnibus allegations without attributing specific instances of harassment against them constitute abuse of process of law. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharati[1], wherein it has been observed as hereunder: “When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the 2nd respondent stated the harassment meted out by her in the hands of the accused in the complaint and the police after due investigation filed a charge-sheet and the case is pending trial and therefore, it is not proper at this stage to discard the accusations leveled against the petitioners. 8. I have gone through the two charge-sheets filed by the police. The 1st charge-sheet is relatable to Crime No.353 of 2006 of Humayun Nagar P.S., Hyderabad and the 2nd charge-sheet is relatable to Crime No.86 of 2007 relatable to the Banjara Hills P.S., Hyderabad. In C.C.No.940 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, three accused persons are facing trial and they are the husband and in-laws of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and whereas, in C.C.No.1138 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, 10 accused persons are facing trial and they are the husband, in-laws, brothers and sisters-in-law of A1 and one mediator for the marriage. The report filed before the Humayun Nagar P.S. relates to the harassment meted out by the 2nd respondent in the hands of her husband and in-laws. She did not spell out anything against any of the family members. Many mediations took place when the case was pending investigation by the Station House Officer, Humayun Nagar P.S. Of course, the mediations did not yield any fruitful result and ultimately, the Station House Officer, Humayun Nagar P.S. completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet. Three accused persons i.e., husband and in-laws are facing trial in C.C.No.740 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Namaply, Hyderabad. So far as the crime registered by the Banjara Hills P.S. (Cr.No.86 of 2007), the additional incident stated in the complaint is dated 23.01.2007. According to the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, on 23.01.2007 A2, A3, A9 and A10 along with others came to her parents’ house and compelled her to sign on Khula papers and when she refused to sign the Khulla papers, they threw the liquor bottles on the main door of her parents’ house. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the complaint filed by her before XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, which complaint came to be forwarded to the SHO, Banjara Hills P.S., Hyderabad under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., reads as hereunder: “That on 15-11-2006 the accused No.1 telephoned the complainant that he is at Riyadh and promised that very soon he will call her to Riyadh. When she contacted the other accused they requested the complainant to wait for sometime and on 23.01.2007 at about midnight A2, A3, A9 & A10 along with others created a galata by demanding the complainant to sign the Khula papers when she refused to sign those papers, the above accused started throwing liquor bottles on the main door of the parents house of the complainant, the matter was reported to police Banjarahills, the accused seeing the situation ran away threatening to spoil the life of the complainant.” If the two reports are read together, no specific role has been attributed in harassing her on the ground of additional dowry or in the incident said to have been taken place on 23.01.2007 to A5, A6, A7 and A8. As held by the Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra’s case (1 supra) that when the complaint was vague as to the participation of the above referred accused, either in the harassment of the 2nd respondent or in the incident occurred on 23.01.2007, continuance of the proceedings against them amounts to abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, Crl. Petition No.669 of 2008 is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.1138 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, against A5, A6, A7 and A8 only. Crl. Petition No.5573 of 2010 is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 08.02.2008 in Crl.P.No.669 of 2008 and the interim stay granted on 25.06.2010 in Crl.P.No.5573 of 2010 shall stand vacated. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th July, 2010. Cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl. Petition Nos.669 of 2008 and 5573 of 2010 Dated:28th July, 2010 [1] (2009) 10 SCC 184