THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 955 of 2010 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is ﬁled by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.617 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The accused was charged for an oﬀence under Section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). According to the prosecution, L.W.1 Smt.Medha is said to have been married to A-1 in the year 1999 and thereafter they lived at diﬀerent places in Gujarat State and in the year 2004, the complainant came to Hyderabad and thereafter as relationship with her husband has been strained, she ﬁled a private complaint in the year 2006, which was referred to the police and the police after due investigation, has ﬁled a charge sheet in the year 2009 against all the accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no cause of action for taking cognizance of the offence. It is not in dispute that the marriage was performed at Hyderabad and it is the starting point for the relationship between the husband and wife and continues to be in force till the marriage is dissolved. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action to ﬁle the complaint at Hyderabad. So far as the allegations of oﬀence under Section 498-A of IPC are concerned, evidently, except casual visits said to have been made by A-2 and A-3, they never stayed with the couple at Gujarat and consequently their acts of harassment to bring dowry does not appear to be probable. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are, evidently, said to be residents of Nizamabad District and they also never stayed at Hyderabad even after the complainant has returned. Except vague allegations of harassment, there is no material and taking into consideration the age of the petitioners and their involvement in the oﬀence being not probable, the prosecution against them deserves to be quashed. So far as the 1st accused is concerned, there are allegations that he was ill-treating the complainant and subjecting her to cruelty on the ground of suspecting her character and also other aspects. These are all veriﬁable facts and merely because an application for divorce has been ﬁled, it does not absolve the criminal liability, if it is to be established during the trial. Therefore, so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and so far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, the proceedings against them are quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.617 of 2009, so far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 01-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 955 of 2010 DATE: 01-12-2011 MR