HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7850 and 8135 of 2008 Date : 16.11.2011 Between : Bachoti Siva Rama Rao & another. …..Petitioners And Bachoti Nirmala Devi and another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7850 and 8135 of 2008 COMMON ORDER : As both these criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.51 of 2008 on the file of Women Police Station, Eluru, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime is petitioner in criminal petition No.7850 of 2008 and accused No.2 is the petitioner in criminal petition No.8135 of 2008. The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid crime is registered on the information given by the 1st respondent-informant/ complainant. As per the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that the marriage between the informant and accused No.1 took place on 21st of October 1978 at Guntur and both of them are Doctors and are running a nursing home in a two-storied-building in R.R.Pet. It is alleged that the informant gained high reputation as a gynecologist and general practitioner and she is consultant to several institutions in the town. It is alleged that the construction of the building where they are running the hospital, is financed by the informant. Accused No.1 is highly suspicious person and on the date of their marriage, accused No.1 alleged to have asked the informant whether she had any affair with any student during college days. It is alleged that in view of the high reputation gained by the informant, to show his supremacy, accused No.1 used to behave violently in the presence of the hospital staff. He has also behaved rudely while the informant was pregnant and forcibly got her aborted. Further allegations are made to the effect that accused No.1 used to abuse and beat the informant now and then by attributing illegal intimacy with medical representatives, college colleagues, etc. He used to harass the informant to convey her half share in the building and the same is supported by his brother accused No.2. It is alleged that the key of the joint locker of the informant and accused No.1 is with accused No.1 and the informant apprehends that accused No.1 might have removed all her jewelry from the locker. Accused No.1 is demanding the informant to agree for divorce and relinquish her rights in his favour and it is also alleged that accused No.1 never took care of the two male children born to them and did not allow the informant to study M.D. in CMC hospital, Vellore. It is further stated in the complaint that accused No.2 is a brief-less Advocate and supporting his brother i.e. accused No.1 and brought some rowdies and unruly persons a year prior to the lodging of complaint and threatened her. Based on the information furnished by the 1st respondent/informant to that effect, a case is registered against the petitioners in crime No.51 of 2008 for the alleged offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC. Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and Smt.Bhaskara Lakshmi and Sri Hari Sreedhar, appearing for the informant/1st respondent. It is contended by Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel that the allegations made in the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent are bald, vague and do not attract any of the essential ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. It is submitted that the marriage of the informant with accused No.1 took place about more than 30 years back and both are Doctors and their children are aged about 27 and 26 years and the present complaint is lodged only to harass the petitioners in view of the O.P. filed by accused No.1 before the Family Court, Eluru, seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It is submitted that even if the allegations are taken to be true on face value, they are not capable of being investigated and do not attract any offence as alleged by the 1st respondent/informant. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/informant that having regard to the nature of allegations, it is a matter for investigation and no case is made out in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the crime registered against the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I have also closely perused the complaint filed by the informant before the Police. The learned counsel for petitioners also placed on record, the copy of the petition filed by accused No.1 before the Family Court, Eluru, seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In this case, it is to be noticed that the marriage between the informant and accused No.1 took place on 21st of October 1978 i.e. more than 30 years back, and their children are aged about 27 and 26 years by the time these criminal petitions came to be filed in the year 2008. A perusal of the petition filed before the Family Court, Eluru, shows that there are allegations made by accused No.1 against the informant that she developed hostile attitude against him and was raising disputes for no reason openly proclaiming that he is no match for her. It is also alleged that the informant used to insult accused No.1 before the patients and staff and create a scene before them. In the O.P., it is stated that the informant is in the habit of abusing the hospital staff and damage the apparatus of the hospital and also not taking care of accused No.1 by providing food and water and deserted him. On the aforesaid allegations, the petition was filed before the Family Court, Eluru on 16.10.2008, seeking divorce. The present complaint was filed before the Police on 15.11.2008 i.e. one month after filing of O.P. by accused No.1 claiming divorce from her. Even a perusal of the contents of the complaint shows that the allegations made therein are vague, and most of the allegations constitute civil disputes between the informant and accused No.1. Taking the contents of the complaint as it is, they do not constitute any offence under Section 498-A of IPC. It appears that referring to certain instances throughout their marital life in the last 30 years, the complaint is lodged. Though there is allegation of abuse and beating, there is no reference to any specific incident anywhere in the complaint. Even against accused No.2, except the bald statement of continuous support to accused No.1, and brought rowdies about a year prior to filing of complaint, there is no specific allegation at all. From a perusal of the contents of the petition filed by accused No.1 before the Family Court and also looking at the contents of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Police, it appears, the 1st respondent is making counter allegations to the allegations made by accused No.1 in the O.P. filed before the Family Court, seeking decree of divorce. It is also to be noticed that the present complaint is filed after the O.P. filed by accused No.1 is registered. From a perusal of the said proceedings and the nature of allegations, this Court is convinced that only as a sequel to the O.P. filed by accused No.1, the present complaint is lodged before the Police. As held above, as this Court is of the view that no case is made out for investigation under Section 498-A of IPC and as the allegations are bald and vague, if the investigation is allowed to go on, the same will be abuse of the process, as such, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in the crime registered against the petitioners herein. For the aforesaid reasons, both the criminal petitions are allowed and the crime registered in Crime No.51 of 2008 on the file of the Women Police Station, Eluru, against the petitioners herein, is hereby quashed. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th November 2011 ajr