THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 653 of 2008 Order: This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A5 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1177 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. The 4th petitioner Syeda Maliha Fathima was given in marriage to the son of the second respondent herein and because of the dowry harassment caused to her she lodged a complaint before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, and the same was referred to the police and registered as a case in Crime No.134 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and the second petitioner herein is accused No.2 in that case. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as a counter blast to the above referred case initiated by the 4th petitioner herein, who is the wife of the son of the second respondent herein, the second respondent lodged a false complaint for the offences under Sections 186, 500, 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC to harass the petitioners. Heard both the counsel. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the ingredients of the alleged offences have been made out from the contents of the complaint. As far as the registration of case in Crime No.134 of 2007 is concerned, there is no dispute that a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC has been registered against the second respondent herein and his son and others. The main contention of the second respondent herein is that the 4th petitioner who was married to his son instead of joining the members of the joint family started residing with her parents and in turn she demanded the second respondent and his family members to pay Rs.25,000/- per month for herself and started troubling the second respondent and his family members in one way or the other. It is also alleged that she had taken away all her jewellery, clothes etc., and did not join the family of the complainant. It is also his case that in spite of preparing passport and visa, the 4th petitioner/A4 herein did not show any interest to join her husband. It is also alleged that the 4th petitioner has a boy friend and therefore she is not inclined to join the son of the 2nd respondent/complainant and that all his efforts to convince the 4th petitioner and her parents have failed. It is alleged that the petitioners herein threatened the second respondent/de facto complainant to pay huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for amicable settlement and when he and his family members did not agree for the said demand they got registered a false case under Section 498-A IPC in Crime No.134 of 2007. It is also his case that he suffered a lot and felt humiliated by the acts of the petitioners. It is also his case that the petitioners have been continuously threatening him and his family members through telephone calls and due to the harassment of the petitioners his wife suffered heart attack and that she had to take treatment from Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre, Hyderabad. It is also his case that accused No.1/petitioner No.1 made false petition to the police and judicial authorities against him and his family members and caused damage to his reputation and to the reputation of his family members. It is also alleged that the petitioners have been causing obstruction to the second respondent to attend to his legal duties. I have gone through the complaint filed by the second respondent and the sworn statements of the witnesses. It is to be seen that the second respondent worked as Superintendent in a Criminal Court at Nizamabad and after retirement, still working as Superintendent in the Fast Track Court. He is expected to know the court proceedings. The second respondent has not mentioned the particulars such as time, date and place of the alleged incidents. He has also not referred to the persons who have witnessed those incidents. So when no date, place or time of alleged offences have been mentioned, it is difficult for any Court to come to a conclusion with regard to the specific acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioners herein. No charge can be framed in the absence of place, time and date of offence. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that in the sworn statement he has mentioned some dates and the place of the incidents. The second respondent being an experienced employee of the Court, having not mentioned the date, time and place of offence in the complaint, even if subsequently developed his case at the stage of recording the statements and mentioned one or two dates, such subsequent improvements cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be made a part and parcel of the complaint at this stage. A criminal complaint, as in civil proceedings cannot be amended and cannot be improved at a subsequent stage. In view of the same, I am of the view that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out from a bare reading of the complaint. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No.1177 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.1177 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, are quashed. _______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 22.04.2010 Nsr