HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.P.No.5212 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners-A1 to A5 in C.C.No.311 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, Medak District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the 2nd respondent herein and the 1st petitioner-accused No.1 was performed on 25.12.2008 as per their Muslim rites and customs and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- apart from gold ornaments, furniture and other household articles towards dowry to the accused. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent-complainant was subjected to harassment for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- at the hands of accused. It is further stated that the accused necked out the 2nd respondent from the house and also threatened her if she failed to bring the said dowry amount as demanded, they will perform another marriage to accused No.1. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before the police, on 02.10.2009, basing on which a case in Crime No.288 of 2009 was registered under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the accused and after completion of investigation the Sub Inspector of Police, Sangareddy Town Police Station, Medak District filed a final report on 29.10.2009 under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, referring the case as ‘Mistake of fact’. The said final report was submitted after giving a notice dated 29.10.2009 in Form No.96 to the 2nd respondent-complainant, which was served on the 2nd respondent-complainant on 31.1.2010. Subsequently the 2nd respondent filed a petition under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the case, the Court below took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners-A1 to A5 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.311 of 2010. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that before registering the case itself the 2nd respondent-complainant was divorced from her husband i.e., Accused No.1 and that they have obtained Kula divorce certificate on 10.09.2009, according to Muslim personal law, and as such the proceedings initiated against the accused are liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant, while opposing the aforesaid submission, contended that the 2nd respondent-complainant has neither given Qula (divorce) to the accused No.1 nor received any talaq from him. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. However, from a perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-complainant, it is clear that there are specific allegations against the 1st petitioner- A1, but no specific allegation is attributed against petitioners 2 to 5 herein i.e., A2 to A5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 5/A2 to A5 herein is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners 2 to 5/A2 to A5 in C.C.No.311 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, Medak District, are hereby quashed. However, the criminal petition is dismissed in so far as the 1st petitioner-A1 is concerned. ______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 19.01.2011 Gsn.