HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2268 of 2007 ORDER: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by A-1 to A-9 in CC No. 38 of 2005 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with a prayer to quash the proceeding therein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Md.Abdul Majid– petitioner (A1) married Ayesha Sultana @ Nausheen – 1st respondent herein (complainant) on 08-10-2010 at Arif Function Plaza, Shaliband, Hyderabad. Their marital life run in a rough feather and thereupon the 1st respondent-complainant filed a private complaint before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and that complaint came to be forwarded to the WPS, South Zone, Hyderabad, who in turn registered the same as a case in crime No. 42 of 2003 came to be registered against her husband and in-laws. The police after due investigation filed a charge sheet before the learned XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, who in turn, took the same on file as CC No. 228 of 2003. On full fledged trial, the learned Magistrate, by Judgment dated 28-10-2009, found the accused not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A and Secs. 4 and 6 of D.P.Act and acquitted them. The 1st respondent – complainant filed a report before the Station House Officer, WPS Hyderabad, on 20.04.2003 alleging inter alia that her husband and in-laws are contemplating to misappropriate her Jahej Articles. Her report dated 20-04- 2008 reads as hereunder: Dear Sir or Madam, I, Ayesha Sultana (Alias Nausheen) W/o Md. Abdul Majeed the complainant herein. My marriage was performed with Md. Abdul Majeed on 8-10-2000 at Arif Function Plaza, Shalibanda, Hyderabad and later on due to regular harassment and torture against me, I have filed a private complaint before Hon’ble XXII Metropolitan Magistrate Court under Section 498-A IPC. The Hon’ble XXII Metropolitan Magistrate Court has forwarded the complaint to WPS, South Zone, Hyderabad and a crime was registered against my husband and my in-laws vide crime No. 42/2003, but some of them are surrender before the Hon’ble XXII Metropolitan Magistrate court and obtained bail. And now I learned from reliable sources that they are misappropriating my jahez articles at throw away prices. I request you to register a separate case against all the accused if crime No. 42/2003 for illegally without any authority under law, misappropriating my jahez articles. The names of the accused and the list of jahez articles are enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and necessary action as per law. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (AYESHA SULTANA) (Alias Nausheen) (COMPLAINANT) ENCLOSURE: 1. List of accused persons 2. List of the jahez articles 3. Basing on the above referred report, the Inspector, WPS, South Zone, Hyderabad, registered a case in Cr.No. 74/2003 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 406 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR. After due investigation, the Inspector of Police, laid a charge sheet before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as CC No. 38 of 2005 against A-1 to A-9, who are petitioners herein. Hence this Criminal Petition by A-1 to A-9, petitioners with the prayer stated supra. 4. Notice to the 1st respondent –defacto complainant came to be ordered on 30-04-2007. The petitioners have been permitted to take out fresh notice to the respondent No.1 by Registered Post with Ack. Due on 15-07-2010. Accordingly, the petitioners took the notice to respondent NO.1-defacto complainant by Regd. Post with Ack. Due and filed proof of service. Despite notice being served on 1st respondent-defacto complainant, she did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2 - State. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were prosecuted for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A and Sec. 4 and 6 of D.P. Act in CC No. 228 of 2003 on the file of the XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad and on full fledged trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty for the said offences and acquitted them accordingly. A further submission has been made that prosecuting the petitioners herein on the self-same accusations amounts to abuse of process of court. The learned counsel submitted the Photostat copy of the Judgment in CC No.228 of 2003. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-State submitted that the police after due investigation laid a charge sheet against A-1 to A-9 petitioners herein and since the case is pending trial, it is not desirable to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent powers U/sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The case of the 1st respondent - defacto complainant is that her husband and in-laws are contemplating to misappropriate her jahej articles. The question whether any Jahej articles were presented to the accused at the time of marriage fell for consideration in CC No. 228 of 2003, wherein the learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence brought on record including the testimony of Respondent No.1-defacto complainant, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that any dowry amount or articles being given to the accused at the time of marriage on demand. For better appreciation I may refer to the relevant portion of the Judgment in CC No. 228 of 2003 and it is thus: 9. Now the points for determination are: i. Whether any dowry amount or articles were given at the time of marriage to the accused on demand ? ii. Whether the defacto complainant was subjected to physical or mental harassment in connection with the dowry ? Points (i) & (ii): The evidence adduced by the defacto complainant who is examined as PW1 is in the following lines. Her marriage with A-1 was performed on 08-10-2000 as per Muslim rites and customs. At that time, parents gave Rs.50,000/- in cash to the parents of A-1 i.e, on 7-9-2000. 16 tolas of gold ornaments were given to her by her parents. The accused did not like the gifts and jahez articles given to her and demanded for a gold chain. A-1 did not provide the required medical treatment to her first daughter. She gave birth to two daughters through A-1 during her wedlock. He did not provide necessary medical treatment after the second delivery and she went to her parents house on 4-2-2002 for medical treatment. All the accused kept her jewellery with them and misbehaved with her saying that she would be thrown out of the house, and she had to file complaint –Ex.P1.” 9. I have gone through the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the 1st respondent, who is the defacto complainant, and her father. They did not give the descriptive particulars of the Jahez articles given at the time of the marriage. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the defacto complainant while being examined as PW-1 in MC No. 28 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad has stated that no Jahej list was prepared at the time of marriage. The copy of the deposition of the defacto complainant, who has been examined as PW-1 in MC No. 28 of 2008 has been placed on record. Relevant portion of the cross-examination of the witness reads as hereunder: “The marriage bureaucrat brought the proposal of the alliance of the respondent to me. There is no lists in writing were not prepared for the articles we have given to them or for the articles they have given to us. It is true that the discussions were held in between my parents and the parents of the respondent. I do not remember whether I have filed any jahz list along with my complaint in the case of dowry harassment. The amount of Rs.50,000/- was given on the date of pawmex ka rasam, which was taken place in the month of September. I do not remember the date of pawmex ka rasam. The jahez list which I filed along with my petition does not contain the signature of the respondent. The witness says no jahez list was prepared at the time of marriage. I do not remember whether it is observed by this court in an order dated 25-6-2003 in M P No. 1249/2003 in Cr.No. 74/2003 that the jahez list filed by me in that crime was signed by me and the respondent at the police station while reconciliation was in progress. It is not true to suggest that I am claiming the same articles in this petition which were mentioned in the said list filed in Cr.No. 74/2003. The signature in Urudu on the certified Xerox copy of the list dated 7-10-2000 does not belong to me. I cannot read Urdu and nor even writ Urdu. It is not true to suggest that I have fabricated and filed the lists and made a false claim and deposing falsely and that the list dated 7-10-2000 was filed by me before this court and that it contains my signature. 11. The material brought on record clearly discloses that no particulars of Jahej articles were stated by the defacto complainant during her examination by the police U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. In the Maintenance Case also she did not speak of the particulars of Jahej articles while being examined as a witness. 12. Such is the material brought on record, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners on accusation of misappropriation of Jahej articles amounts to abuse of process of court. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No. 38 of 2005 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. ____________ Mjl/* 30-07- 2010