HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5103 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 4/ A2 and A4 to A6 are accused of offences punishable U/Secs. 384, 498-A, 420, 406 IPC in CC No. 235 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was wife of A1, who is not a petitioner herein. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 to A6 are younger brothers of A-1. After filing of the case, A-3 died. There is no dispute that an U.S.A. Court granted divorce between the 2nd respondent and A-1. But granting of divorce cannot be a ground to absolve the accused from criminal liability for the activity which was done prior to such grant of divorce. It is stated that the 2nd respondent married another person after the divorce. 2. It is alleged by the 2nd respondent that at the time of marriage, huge sum of money amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- was entrusted and that A1 and the 2nd respondent went to USA and returned and that subsequently, A1 alone went away to USA leaving the 2nd respondent in India and that at Hyderabad, A2 to A6 were harassing her, beating her, asking her to give divorce to A1 and asking her not to go to USA. It is contended that in spite of the said allegations, the 2nd respondent gave a report to the police at Vijayawada, though no part of cause of action took place at Vijayawada. Apart from the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC, there are offences punishable U/Secs. 384, 420 and 406 IPC also in this case. The cause of action for all those offences took place at Vijayawada where marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 took place. 3. At any rate, the petitioners 2 to 4/A4 to A6 are younger brothers of A-1 and they are all students. There can be no entrustment of money to the younger members of the family by the newly married bride. At best, the entrustment can only be to A1 and A2 and not to A4 to A6. Simply because A4 to A6 are stated to be supporting other family members, it cannot be said that they were harassing the defacto complainant. No specific overtacts are attributed to A4 to A6 as against the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that continuance of proceedings as against A4 to A6 would be abuse of process of law. In the result, the petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No. 235 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in so far as the petitioners 2 to 4/A4 to A6 are concerned and the petition is partly dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner/A2 is concerned. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5103 of 2008 Dated: 20-08-2010 Mjl/*