HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No. 1475 of 2009 Date: 12-08-2010 Between: Gorantla Sreenivasulu and others …….. petitioners and kamma Venkata Ramappa and another ……… respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No. 1475 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners, who are A-1 to A-4, approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.38 of 2009 of Nandyal Taluq Police Station, Kurnool District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. A-1 is the husband of the deceased. A-2 and A-3 are the parents and A-4 is the sister of A-1. The first respondent herein is the father of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the deceased and the first petitioner/A-1 was performed on 28-06-2005 at Aluru and at that time, an amount of Rs.4 lakhs in cash and 20 tulas of gold were given to the first petitioner/A-1. Thereafter, A- 1, on the instigation of A-2 to A-4, started harassing the deceased by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and also beat her and the same was informed by the deceased to the first respondent herein through phone. The deceased became pregnant and delivered a child on 10-04-2006. Thereafter, on 04-05-2007 the deceased called the first respondent herein and informed that her husband (A-1) beat her and on the next day i.e., 05-05-2007, the first respondent herein received a call that the deceased died. On the report given by the VRO, the police registered Crime No.100 of 2007 against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4. While so, the first respondent herein filed the present private complaint and it was forwarded to the same police for investigation and the same was registered as Crime No.38 of 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased died on 05-05-2007 and on the basis of the complaint lodged by the VRO of the village, Crime No.100 of 2007 was registered by the same police, in which the present second respondent-police herein proceeded further and they are investigating into the matter and in the meanwhile, after a lapse of two years, the present complaint is filed by the father of the deceased alleging that there are some suspicious circumstances in connection with the death of the deceased. Basing on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same for investigation and it was registered as Crime No.38 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC. 4. The point to be decided in this case is whether two complaints are maintainable on the same set of facts? 5. Already a crime is registered basing on the complaint lodged by the VRO of the village on the same set of facts and the same is under investigation. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the further material, a private complaint was lodged by the first respondent herein, who is the father of the deceased, and the same was forwarded to the concerned police station, where the earlier crime is also pending. Hence, the present complaint is the second complaint in view of the fact that already a crime registered on the same set of facts is under investigation. 6. This Court, after hearing the arguments of both the counsel, perused the entire record. It is evident from the record that two crimes are registered on the same allegations with regard to the death of the deceased, who is the daughter of the first respondent herein. This Court is of the view that two complaints are not maintainable on the same set of facts. Therefore, the complaint in Crime No.38 of 2009 of Nandyal Taluq Police Station is hereby quashed. 7. However, Crime No.100 of 2007 can be investigated and charge sheet can be filed if any criminal act of the petitioners is found to be true during the course of investigation. The subsequent complaint lodged by the first respondent herein and registered as Crime No.38 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has to be considered as further material collected during the course of investigation in Crime No.100 of 2007. But, in any event, the Investigating Officer is directed to consider the contents of the complaint filed by the first respondent herein in Crime No.38 of 2009 as further material collected during the course of investigation, and basing on the same, he shall proceed further and after due investigation, he is directed to file charge sheet either way in Crime No.100 of 2007. 8. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J Date: 12-08-2010 YCR