HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.P.No.8089 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.867 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, registered for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC on the ground that the allegations made against the petitioner/accused (for short ‘the accused’) therein do not attract the said section. 2. The allegations made in the corresponding complaint or final report are as follows: The accused married one Srilatha, daughter of the de facto complainant in the case, on 18-11-1999 and during their marital life, they begot female child. Ever since the accused involved in harassing his wife mentally and physically on the ground that she was not having any job and there was no need for him to maintain her. Therefore, the de facto complainant purchased one tiled house and one flat in favour of her daughter. On 16-01-2004, the accused informed the de facto complainant that her daughter died. But, in fact, the accused and others caused her death. Further, all the properties belonging to her daughter are kept with the accused and without returning those properties, he got married again. Further, the accused is not taking care of the daughter of himself and the deceased and she needs the properties for her survival. Hence, under those circumstances, necessary action is to be taken against the accused. 3. In fact the final report was filed by the concerned police to the effect that it happened to be a false case however the learned Magistrate, in spite of that, had taken the case on file. 4. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that though the final report was filed by the police to the effect that it happened to be a false case without any protest petition, the learned Magistrate had taken the case on file and further in any case, Section 406 IPC is not applicable to him because he is also entitled to the properties of the deceased wife. It is also asserted by him that the allegations made against the accused are false, and the properties belong to the accused only. 6. It is pertinent to note here that even according to the de facto complainant, gold and other articles in question were given to her daughter i.e. the wife of the accused and she became the owner of them. So by the death of the deceased, the accused and the daughter became the absolute owners of the property, because of their relationship with her. Thereby, the accused and their daughter got right to claim those properties. Further after the death of the deceased- wife, automatically, the accused would have come into the possession of those articles. In fact, significantly it is claimed on behalf of the accused that they happened to be his own properties. 7. Hence, the provisions of Section 406 IPC, which deals with the question of entrustment of the properties to the accused and the accused taking the properties for himself are not attracted here. Further, when the accused claims that he is the owner of the properties, the question of ownership of the property is to be established in the circumstances of the case. 8. The matter is purely civil in nature. Further the question of the welfare of the grand daughter of the de facto complainant can be looked into and considered by approaching concerned Court of law. Further, as I find that there is no criminal liability against the accused for the alleged offence, it is not proper to prosecute him in the criminal case. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.867 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. ____________________ 18th November 2011 kvr