HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P. No. 2907 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 8/A1 to A8 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 406, 307/34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in crime No. 140 of 2009 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is wife of A-1. A-2 is mother, A3 and A4 are brothers, A5 and A6 are grand parents, A7 and A8 are uncle and aunt of A-1. At the out set, it may be noted that from the FIR it is clear that the allegations constituting offences punishable under Sections 506 and 307 IPC are against A-1 only and no others. Further, there are absolutely no allegations in the report relating to offences punishable under Sections 406 IPC. In so far as offences punishable under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, such allegations can be made only against A-1 and A2 and not against A3 to A8, who are junior members in the family and distant relations. 2. There is no dispute about the marriage between A-1 and the 2nd respondent. Even though there is some allegations about A-1 developing illicit intimacy with another women and marrying her as his second wife, the petitioner did not choose to file the case against the alleged second wife, muchless for offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. There is no dispute that A-1 and the 2nd respondent have been residing separately since prior to the year 2002. Previously, when the report was given by the 2nd respondent, the Nizamabad I Town Police registered case in crime No.209 of 2002 for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet in CC No.370 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nizamabad against A1 to A8 and another. There is no dispute that after full trial, CC No.370 of 2003 ended in acquittal of A1 to A8 and another of the charges under Section 498 and 494 IPC by Judgment dated 01-10-2009. The 2nd respondent’s counsel stated that as against the said acquittal, the 2nd respondent filed Crl.R.C. No. 2066 of 2009 in this Court and it is pending. Admittedly, there is no reunion between the parties subsequent to the year 2002. The present crime No. 140 of 2009 was registered on 31.03.2009 when the previous CC No.370 of 2003 was pending in the last stages. When there was no reunion between A1 and the 2nd respondent, and when offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC was the subject matter in CC No.370 of 2003, this court is of the opinion that the present second FIR relating to the same offence under Section 498-A IPC is not maintainable in law, as there is no subsequent cause of action for the said offence. In that view of the matter, petitioners 3 to 8/A3 to A8 are entitled for relief in this case. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.140 of 2009 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioners 3 to 8/A3 to A8 in respect of all the offences; and the criminal petition is partly allowed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are concerned; and the petition is partly dismissed as against the petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 506 and 307 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 24-09-2010 Mjl/*