THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9700 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner preferred the present criminal petition with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No. 629 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused in the aforesaid C.C. The following grounds are raised by the petitioner: “The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner started harassing the complainant since the birth of her son, i.e., from the year 2006 and started demanding to sell the plot which belonged to the complainant adm. 160 sq, yards situated at Aziz Bagh Toli Chowki, Hyderabad for setting up a Hotel at Rasel Khaima (UAE) and whenever she refused to do so her husband abused and beat the complainant black & blue as the harassment became unbearable she sold the plot and gave the sale proceeds to the petitioner, further she alleged that the petitioner has developed illegal intimacy with another married lady Smt. Sameera at Raisal Khaima in the year 2007. The complainant further states that the petitioner closed the business and came down to Hyderabad and forced the complainant to live with his mother on her refusal to do so, the petitioner harassed her and revoked the two gift settlement deeds and left for Doha (Qatar). The case of the prosecution is nothing but a cock and bull story because the only allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded to sell her immovable property as a matter of fact the petitioner himself is a landlord having various immovable properties in Hyderabad and he also gifted two properties to the complainant i.e., house bearing Mpl. No. 8-1-297/2/E/17, adm. 233.33 square yards, situated at Falcon Valley at Toli Chowki, Hyderabad through a Registered Gift Settlement deed dated 8.9.2009 and when the petitioner himself has gifted his properties in the year 2009, to the defacto complainant so question of demanding to sell her plot does not arise at all and more over admittedly the petitioner is an Engineer by profession and the allegation that he started the Hotel business from the sale proceeds of the plot of the defacto complainant and subsequently the closer of the said business does not sustain and above all the complainant has not filed any document to show that she was the owner of the alleged plot and sold the same, so in absence of any document with regard to the ownership of the complainant an adverse inference can be drawn with regard to the case of the prosecution, further there is no whisper about the amount given by the defacto complainant to the petitioner/accused in the complaint and the charge sheet. The entire case of the prosecution is nothing but the act of revenge ad counter blast to the cancellation of the gift settlement deeds by the petitioner and to appreciate this facts of the dates of the cancellation of gift deeds ad filing of the case has to be looked into, for instance the petitioner cancelled the gift settlement deed dated 8.9.2009 by executing a deed of cancellation of gift on 24.10.2009 and the date of the complaint is 26.10.2009 i.e., immediately after two days after the cancellation of gift settlement deed and a case was registered on 29.10.2009 U/Sec. 498(A) I.P.C. only and there is any section of dowry prohibition Act is incorporated and during the pendency of 498(A) proceedings C.C. no. 629 of 2010, she also initiated a dissolution of marriage proceedings in F.C.O.P. No. 391 of 2010 and in the said case, she managed to set him ex parte and consequently the exparte order was passed on 23.8.2010 and the marriage was dissolved and after the dissolution of marriage immediately within a period of only 3½ months i.e., on 3.12.2010 she contracted second marriage with a gentlemen, by name, Mohd. Khaja Naseeruddin, S/o.Mohammed Ameenuddin which clearly shows that the Defacto complainant was never willing to lead marital life with the petitioner and was eager to get married to said Mr. Mohd. Khaja Naseeruddin by taking divorce from the petitioner as she developed illegal intimacy with the said person in the absence of the petitioner who was busy in earning bread for his family doing job abroad i.e., in United Sates of Arab Emirates. The complaint lodged by the Defacto complainant does not attract the ingredients of Section 499(A) of I.P.C. and further in the charge sheet the Section 3 and 4 of the dowry prohibition Act is not mentioned, with then it can be safely concluded that the complaint of the defacto complainant is totally false and the same is liable to be quashed. The petitioner humbly submits that the above said false complaint is filed only to harass the petitioner without there being any iota of proof. In other words, the Defacto complainant has abused the process of law. The petitioner is an Engineer employed in Saudi Arabia and he is falsely implicated as he is totally innocent and has not committed any offence and the defacto complainant has filed the complaint only with an intention to harass him.” This Court heard the arguments, perused the entire records and the charge sheet filed against the petitioner. This Court is of the view that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and the petitioner evaded arrest and N.B.Ws. are also pending against the petitioner herein. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paras 2 to 7 of the affidavit are the points to be appraised by the trial Court. This Court cannot invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition. Hence, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 12.10.2011 pnb