IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.P.NO.142 OF 2008. Date:24.12.2009 Between:- Sangu Narsaiah ..Petitioner/Accused No.5 And The State, through S.H.O. P.S. Metpally, Karimnagar District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.195 of 2007 on the file of the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate at Metpally. The petitioner is Accused No.5 in C.C.No.405 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpalli for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As the petitioner was not apprehended, the case against him was separated and numbered as C.C.No.195 of 2007. The other accused 1 to 4, 6 and 7 were tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpalli and they were acquitted for the said offences. The categorical finding recorded by the Trial Court is that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is not disclosing anything against A-4 to A-7 along with A-1 to A-3 to show that they harassed P.W.3 for additional dowry. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the cruelty to P.W.3 and accordingly, they were acquitted. The case of the present petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of the other accused, who were already acquitted. As a matter of fact, the investigating officer, at the time of filing of the charge sheet, did not find any material to connect A-5 with the offences alleged. Therefore, his name was initially deleted from the charge sheet, but on the protest petition, his name was again included. Even otherwise, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner instigated the other accused to harass P.W.3 or he is said to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the evidence is adduced, no useful purpose would be served. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.195 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpally. _​__________ K.C.BHANU, J 24th December, 2009 AMD