THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7048 of 2008 Date:14th December, 2011 Between: Shaikh Lateef Bi W/o.Saidul Saheb & Anr. ..... Petitioners/A2 & A3 AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7048 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A2 Shaikh Lateef Bi and A3 Shaikh Saidulu in P.R.C.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, Prakasam District, to quash the proceeding therein against them. 2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a report before the Station House Officer, Podili Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that she has been married to Shaikh Khader Vali on 05.11.1999 and that at the time of the marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.1,25,000/- and presented gold ornaments and household articles worth of Rs.25,000/-. It is further averred in the report that she has been harassed on the ground of additional dowry and attempts have been made to do away her life on 20.09.2006 and 15.01.2007. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.29 of 2007 came to be registered by the Station House Officer, Podili P.S. During the course of investigation, the Station House Officer, Podili P.S. examined about 9 witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be presented before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.C.No.12 of 2007. Hence, this Criminal Petition by A2 and A3 in P.R.C.No.12 of 2007 seeking the prayer stated supra. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the earliest report presented by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant does not speak of the involvement of the petitioners herein and therefore, continuation of proceedings against them in P.R.C.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, amounts to abuse of process of the Court. A further submission has been made that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant presented the report before the Police on receipt of summons in O.S.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, Prakasam District, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel refers the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.37 of 2007, which finds place at page No.18 of the material papers. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant submits that the investigation done by the police clearly established the participation of the petitioners herein in harassing the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant and therefore, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the statement of the 2nd respondent de facto complainant recorded by the police during investigation. The 2nd respondent-de facto complainant has stated specific instances wherein the petitioners have threatened her and her parents. The two instances stated by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement are dated 20.09.2006 and 15.01.2007. In both the instances, the participation of the petitioners herein has been stated. Such is the material available on record, the relief sought for by the petitioners to quash the proceeding in P.R.C.No.12 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, Prakasam District, cannot be acceded to. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:14th December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7048 of 2008 Date:14th December, 2011