HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6790 OF 2009 DATED.27-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 (For short, ‘A-2 and A-3’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.7 of 2009, pending on the file of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (For short, ‘The Act’). 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-2 and A-3, the respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in the Criminal Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Criminal Case. 3. In brief the prosecution version is as follows : A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3. The marriage of A-1 in the case with the de-facto complainant was performed on 25-05-2003 at Thandarpalle, Station Ghanpur, Warangal district. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash towards dowry, 6 tulas of gold and household articles were given to A-1 by her parents. Subsequently, they were blessed with one male issue namely Thrinesh. The de-facto complainant was the only daughter to his father’s second wife. Through the first wife, her father got three sons and one daughter. Her father got ancestral property of Ac.2-32 guntas and two houses admeasuring 100 and 120 square yards respectively at Patancheru, Medak District. In fact, the de-facto complainant and A-1 led happy marital life only for 5 days and thereafter A-1 to A-3 having come to know about the properties of her father started demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/ including her share in the said property of her father. Every day A-2 and A-3 used to abuse her for every petty issue and not used to provide full meals to her though she was doing the entire household work. Further, A-1 never treated the de-facto complainant as his wife and always by listening to his parents and elder brother’s words used to beat her black and blue and also never permitted her to talk with their neighbors and she was kept in total house arrest. Further, A-1 always used to insult the parents of the de- facto complainant before her in filthy language. A-2 and A-3 used to complain about the de-facto complainant whenever A-1 returned to home. Thus, the de-facto complainant had seen hell during her stay with A-1 at his parents house. Further, A-1 did not pay any amount to her and their child for their maintenance. While so, in the month of October, 2008 she came to know that A-1 married another woman namely Saritha resident of Janagoan village, Warangal district. Subsequently she along with her parents went and questioned about the highhanded acts of A-1, then A-1 and his family members threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences and challenged to see their end. Hence, A-1 to A-3 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 and A-3 that emphatically she left the company of A-1 in 2003 itself, about which there is no dispute and it is not a case of reunion between her and A-1 and only in 2008, she filed the complaint and therefore the allegations pertaining to the year 2003 are barred by limitation and further with regards to what according to her transpired after coming to know about the second marriage between A-1 and Saritha is without any basis and only bald allegations are made against A-2 and A-3 and further there is no specific allegation that A-2 and A-3 involved in performing the second marriage to A-1 and therefore it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State has opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. It is also contended by him that all the said allegations with reference to incident are happened at Warangal and the concerned Magistrate Court at Warangal only got jurisdiction to entertain the matter but on the other hand, the case was filed before the Court at Hyderabad and therefore the case is barred by on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 8. So far as Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned the corresponding punishment prescribed therein is three years, whereas the punishment prescribed under Section 494 is seven years. Pertinently there is no dispute that in the year 2003 itself the de-facto complainant left the company of A-1. Therefore, by virtue of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the prosecution under Section 498-A I.P.C. is barred. In addition to that there are no specific allegations of harassment of the de-facto complainant for money or harassing her to drive her to commit suicide to attract the provisions of Section 498-A I.P.C. Similarly, under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the punishment prescribed is three and two years respectively which are also barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Further, only bald allegations are made with regards to what according to her transferred after she came to know about the second marriage of A-1. Further, there are no specific allegations against A-2 and A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 494 I.P.C. Nobody should be prosecuted unnecessarily as it amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, for the foregoing reasons as there is no good basis to prosecute A-2 and A-3 for the alleged offences, accordingly the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.7 of 2009, pending on the file of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad in so far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:27-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6790 OF 2009 December, 27, 2011 DSH