THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4529 of 2009 Dated: - 29th September, 2011 Between Shanigaram Kishore Kumar and others …Petitioners AND State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4529 of 2009 ORDER:- This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.50 of 2009 dated 01.06.2009 on the file of the Women Police Station, Adilabad. 2. The second respondent herein – de facto complainant is the wife of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is the mother and the third petitioner is the father of the first petitioner and the in-laws of the de facto complainant. The allegations of the de facto complainant are that she is working as staff nurse in RIMS, Adilabad and that her marriage with the first petitioner was performed on 21.05.2007 and that at the time of her marriage, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, one motorcycle, one tula gold ring and other household articles were presented to the first petitioner in the presence of the elders and that they lived happily for some time. Now it is alleged that her husband – the first petitioner and her in-laws, i.e., petitioners 2 and 3 started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and sent her out of the matrimonial house and that then, her mother arranged an amount of Rs.20,000/- but in spite of paying Rs.20,000/-, again on 23.01.2009, the first petitioner beat her and caught hold of her neck and attempted to kill her and that they have also snatched the gold ornaments from her. Her further case is that somehow, she escaped and went to her parents’ house and her husband came there also and beat her even in her parents’ house, which was witnessed by the locality people. Basing on the same, the police, Women Police Station, Adilabad, registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 323 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioners, which is being sought to be quashed by the petitioners in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, no specific allegations have been made by the de facto complainant. It is also her submission that though the alleged incident took place on 23.01.2009, the report has been given to the police on 01.06.2009 and there is inordinate delay of about six months in lodging complaint with the police and on that ground itself, the FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. A reading of the FIR gives an impression that specific allegations have been made by the de facto complainant not only against her husband but also against her in-laws, i.e., petitioners 2 and 3. Her specific case is that all of them have harassed her and beat her. As far as the issue of delay is concerned, normally the proceedings cannot be quashed because of delay in lodging complaint with the police. There may be several reasons for the delay. Merely because a woman has waited for some time expecting change in the attitude of her husband, that cannot be treated as inordinate or unexplained delay. 6. Be that as it may, it is for the trial Court to consider all these aspects in the trial. Moreover, it appears from the record that the petition was not pressed against the first petitioner. 7. In the above circumstances, I do not see any grounds to quash the proceedings. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the third petitioner, who is the father of the first petitioner, is working as Attender in DM & HO Office at Adilabad, I consider it just and reasonable to direct the concerned police not to arrest petitioners 2 and 3 herein till the date of filing of the charge-sheet. 8. Subject to the above observation, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 29th September, 2011 Bvv