THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6663 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.175 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 498-A r/w 34 I.P.C. The factum of marriage between the first petitioner and second respondent-de facto complainant is not in dispute. The second petitioner is the father-in-law, third petitioner is the mother-in-law, fourth petitioner is the brother-in-law and fifth petitioner is the sister-in- law of the de facto complainant. According to the complaint allegations, after the marriage the de facto complainant lived happily with her husband-A.1 for some time, and thereafter, the petitioners harassed her by making sneering remarks over the Jahez articles and abused her in filthy language. The petitioners demanded the de facto complainant to give her gold ornaments. When she refused to give her gold ornaments to them, A.1 beat her with a belt, due to which she received severe cut injuries, and the petitioners threatened her not to inform the same to anybody. While so, on 28.02.1999, the de facto complainant and A.1 went to abroad, from where, A.1 went to Dammam and the de facto complainant to Tabuk and joined in their respective duties. A.1 used to harass the de facto complainant over telephone and demand her to send her entire salary amount to him and his parents. On the demand of A.1, the de facto complainant left the job in March, 2000 and joined him at Dammam. When she was pregnant, she received Rs.70,000/- towards her service benefits and the same was forcibly taken away by A.1. Later, she started giving tuitions to the children and earning money at Dammam and the same was also snatched away by A.1. While so, she gave birth to a male child on 08.07.2000, but A.1 neglected her according to the directions of his parents. On 21.07.2001 she came to India and her parents in- law-A.2 and A.3 received her at airport, took her to their house, forcibly took away all her belongings, and started harassing her to give her gold ornaments. When she refused, they beat her, and sent her to her parents’ house on 11.09.2001. Thereafter, at the intervention of the elders, the matter was pacified and A.1 took her to Dammam, where she was blessed with a female child on 20.08.2002. On 20.10.2004 A.1 sent her to India with minor children stating that he will call them to Dammam later, but he did not call her and her visa expired. As per the demand of A.1 and his parents, her father purchased a house at Shaikpet in the year 2004 and gave it to the de facto complainant. While she was staying at the said house by shifting her Jahez articles and other items, A.2 to A.5 used to visit her house and harass her mentally and physically to transfer the said house in the name of A.1. A.1 came to India in June, 2004 and took her to his house at Dabeerpura. A.1 did not allow the parents of the de facto complainant to meet her and whenever her parents came there, A.1 and his parents demanded to transfer the documents of the house at Shaikpet on his name. A.1 to A.3 beat her number of times on the said issue. When A.1 left to Dammam for the first time, on the demand of A.2 and A.3, her father arranged Rs.14,000/- for the air ticket. In July, 2004, A.1 went to Dammam leaving the de facto complainant in his house, A.2 to A.5 harassed her by keeping all her belongings and valuables with them. When she contacted A.1, he demanded Rs.1,50,000/- for visa and other expenses, which were paid by her father in the interest of her marital life. On arranging visa by A.1, she went to Dammam on 20.10.2004 by giving her house situated at Shaikpet on rent. A.1 made her life miserable without providing minimum necessities to her and sent her back to India on 02.10.2005. After coming to India, she came to know that A.2 to A.5 forcibly evicted the tenant from the house situated at Shaikpet and misappropriated the rental amount, her jewellary and jahez articles. Hence, she filed the complaint requesting to take necessary action against A.1 to A.5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the de facto complainant has already obtained divorce from the first petitioner and to that effect he has produced the Legal Court Deeds dated 11.10.2005 obtained from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Justice. He placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Syed Hyder Hussain alias Sanovar v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1], wherein this Court held that on giving divorce to his wife by the muslim husband belonging to Shia sect by pronouncing triple talaq, he is prevented from marrying the same woman, and hence the provisions of Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act will not apply. Therefore, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. The Legal Court Deeds dated 11.10.2005 disclose that it was proved that A.1 has divorced his wife- de facto complainant, in return for her taking custody, care and upbringing of the two children, and accordingly the Judge, Al-Jubail General Court ruled on the same and informed A.1 that his wife is divorced from him and that he may only return to her by a new marriage contract and a new dowry and with her consent. The Judge informed the wife that she must abide by the legally prescribed period following divorce as applicable to her case and he took proof of their agreement regarding the financial support and approved the same and ruled on the same accordingly. The Legal Court Deeds further disclose that there were problems and disagreements between the parties and they had agreed that the husband would divorce her in return for her taking custody and care of the two children; that he would make a monthly financial support to be deposited in her bank account or transferred to her in India; that he would repatriate her with the two children to India and that the sum of the monthly expense will be Rs.4,000/-. After obtaining divorce from A.1 on 11.10.2005, the de facto complainant returned to India and lodged the complaint on 25.02.2006 suppressing the said fact. Further, in the cross-examination in M.C.No.278 of 2007, the de facto complainant admitted that she did not give complaint to the police with regard to the amount of Rs.70,000/- snatched away by A.1 from her; that after divorce, she married again and she is jobless; that she filed a criminal case against A.1 and his family members under Section 498-A I.P.C., after obtaining Qulah divorce from A.1. The marriage certificate dated 13.01.2008 also discloses that the de facto complainant married one Syed Abdul Wasay on 05.04.2007 and living with him. The de facto complainant, after obtaining divorce from A.1 at Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, returned to India and lodged the preset complaint suppressing the fact that she obtained divorce. Further, pending the complaint, the de facto complainant married again and now she is living with her husband. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by illustration No.7 enumerated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2], which reads as under: “7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge” In view of the above, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same are accordingly quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 18.11.2010 va [1] 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 339 (A.P.) [2] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604