HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION.No.5619 of 2008 ORDER: This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to quash proceedings in C.C.No.154 of 2008 on the file of XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in the calendar case and the 3rd respondent is the de facto complainant therein. For convenience safe, I refer them as arrayed in the calendar case from hereafter words. 3. The facts leading to file this Criminal Petition are as follows: Charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Sough Zone, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein on the basis of a report given by one Smt. V.Vijaya Lakshmi, wife of the 1st petitioner, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 420 and read with Section 34 IPC for the reasons given below: The defacto-complainant married the 1st petitioner on 22-05-1997 at Lakshmi Gardens, I.S. Sadan, Hyderabad, as per Hindu rights and customs and then the marriage was consummated, and they lived together for two months at their matrimonial home, Saidabad and thereafter, both of them lived together at Tirmalnagar, Amberpet, for two and half years, and in April 1999, the 1st accused left for U.S.A. and the defacto complainant went to her parents’ house for delivery purpose. During their marital life, they begot two male children. During that period, the 1st accused, along with the other accused who are his sister-in-law and brother-in-law subjected the defacto- complainant to mental and physical harassment to transfer her house, given by her parents, in the name of the 1st accused and the 1st accused also neglected her and their children. Further, after April 1999, the 1st accused and the defacto-complainant never resided together and she has been staying in her parents’ house. Further in the year 2005, the 1st accused came to India and met his father-in-law i.e. father of defacto-complainant and then, there was altercation between them, on which, the 1st accused left India. Further the 1st accused filed divorce petition in Family Court, numbered as O.P.No.558 of 2005. Further, in the year 2006, the 1st accused came to India and having come to know that the defacto complainant filed a complaint against him and the other accused on 31-10-2006, he managed to leave India. Further, in the year 2007, on hearing the death of his mother, the 1st accused returned to India and then he was detained at Mumbai Airport. Ultimately, it is claimed that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 420 IPC and read with Section 34 IPC. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made against the accused are said to have taken place during 1999 or prior to 1999 which cannot be taken into consideration at this stage and later on, mostly the 1st accused resided in U.S.A. and ultimately, there is no supporting evidence to the effect that he returned to India during 2005 and involved in an altercation with his father-in- law, and even assuming that he involved in such altercation with his father-in-law, it does not amount to committing any offences as alleged and hence, the filing of the charge sheet is without any basis and is abuse of process of law and subjecting the innocent people to sufferance and hence, it is a fit case where the proceedings are to be quashed. 5. Per contra, it is the contention of learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents that there are clear allegations of harassment of the defacto complainant by the petitioners for the purpose of transferring her house in the name of A-1 and also neglecting and deserting her and the children without any lawful cause and there is also a clear evidence to the effect that the 1st accused involved in intimidating his father-in-law and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. 6. Point:- By virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C., any proceedings, which are intended to abuse the process of law, are to be quashed under the concept of inherent powers of the court taking into consideration the relevant circumstances. 7. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that she gave a report against the petitioners on the ground of harassing her for the purpose of transferring her house, given to her by her parents, in favour of A-1 prior to 1999. If her claim that the accused subjected her to harassment mentally and physically and also the 1st accused had deserted her is true, prima facie, she would have taken necessary action immediately without waiting till 2006. It is also quite significant that admittedly from April 1999 to 2005, the 1st accused was in U.S.A. only. There is no basis in any way that during that period, they subjected the de facto complainant to harassment. So when the de facto-complainant and her parents had taken the legal action consequently, apparently it provides that no such unpleasant things took place in between them during that period. Further, so far as the allegation against the 1st accused that he involved in altercation with his father-in-law and intimidated him during 2005 is concerned, there is absolutely no good basis to take cognizance of it. Further, filing of the divorce petition subsequently does not amount to harassing the de facto complainant. Therefore, it is also to be reckoned with that there are no allegations against the petitioners 2 and 3 of subjecting the defacto complainant to harassment after 1999. 8. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the allegations were concocted for the purpose of filing the report following which, the case was registered and the charge sheet was filed by the concerned police, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and harassment of the accused. Therefore, it is a fit case to take recourse under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in the case are quashed as prayed for. __________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date: 31-03-2011 KVR