THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6579 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.53 of 2010 of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein, who are working in Indian Army, are the brothers-in-law of the de facto complainant herein. He submitted that the complaint in this case does not disclose any specific allegations against these petitioners, except stating that whenever these petitioners used to visit their village during holidays, they used to instigate their brother, who is arrayed as A- 1 in the case, to assault the de facto complainant and abuse her. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are falsely implicated in this case. To substantiate the claim of the petitioners to the effect that they were on duty at the time of registration of the present crime, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a letter, dated 14.05.2010, addressed by Major Battery Commander, under whom the 2nd petitioner herein is working, to the District Magistrate, Srikakulam. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein vehemently contended that the contention of the petitioners to the effect that they were on duty at the time of registration of the present crime, cannot be a genuine ground to quash the present complaint against the petitioners. A perusal of the last portion of the complaint clearly reveals that on 10.04.2010 night at 8.00 p.m., A-1 along with these two petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant demanding her to bring additional dowry by 11.04.2010, failing which they will kill her by pouring kerosene, and they also tried to kill her by throttling her neck. The letter dated 14.05.2010 addressed by Battery Commander of Army, which the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court, runs as follows: “I am writing this letter to seek your kind attention and assistance in connection with a personal problem of one of my soldier No.15155527W Gunner (GD) Venkata Ramana Hanumanthu has been serving in my unit since Jan 2004. Since enrolment in Army, he has served with extreme dedication, sincerity and devotion to duty. At present the individual is posted in an intense counter insurgency operational area in the northern part of the country. 2. Gunner (GD) Venkata Ramana Hanumanthu, son of Shri Rama Rao Hanumanthu, is resident of village – Modugavalasa, PO & Teh – Tekkali, District – Srikakulam, State – Andhra Pradesh. 3. His elder brother Mr Vasudeva Rao got married with Miss Eashwari D/o Shri Bommidi Lingaiah, resident of vill – Kalichamburu, PO – Chamburu, Teh – Tekkali, Distt – Srikakulam (AP) on 28 Feb 2008. She could not adjust with his brother’s family and went back to her parent’s home. Now she has filed a case against her husband and his family for harassment due to dowry. She has three elder brothers, they are Mr Bommidi Srinivasa Rao (Sub Inspector, Kovvur), Mr. Bommidi Balakrishna (constable, 1 Town police station, Srikakulam) and Mr Bommidi Neelakantam working in GMR Industries, Rayavalasa. Her two brothers, who are working in police deptt have registered FIR No.53/2010 on 12 Apr 2010 in which my soldier’s name is also included, whereas during that time he was on duty. The lady’s brothers are also harassing my soldier’s parents on daily basis and threatening them that they will beat my soldier when he comes on leave. Due to the above mentioned reasons my soldier is mentally depressed and is not able to concentrate on his job in this taxing and sensitive environment. 4. In view of the above, I request your kind co-operation and directions to concerned authorities in this regard which will go a long way in resolving the issue, therefore raising the morale of serving soldier of Indian Army.” Copies of the aforesaid letter, dated 14.05.2010, were marked to the District Collector of Srikakulam District, the Superintendent of Police of Srikakulam and the Police-in-charge of Tekkali Police Station. The said letter clearly indicates that on the particular day, the 2nd petitioner herein was on duty. This Court cannot invoke provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to decide an issue whether the petitioners were present in the scene of occurrence or not. This Court is fully aware of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time, when a letter addressed by a responsible Officer of Army, substantiating the claim of the petitioners, is filed before the Court, the same can be taken into account. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the present complaint against the petitioners herein amounts to abuse of process of law and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in the present complaint i.e., Crime No.53 of 2010 of Tekkali Police Station, Srikakulam District, against the petitioners herein alone. __________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 10.11.2011 v v