HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5242 of 2010 DATE: 16.11.2011 Between : Gulam Mustafa Imran. …….Petitioner And The State of A.P., through its Public Prosecutor & another. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5242 of 2010 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.313 of 2009 on the file of the Women Police Station, Charminar, South Zone, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. The said complaint is referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation. On such reference, a crime is registered against the petitioner and his parents in Crime No.313 of 2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint is filed by the 2nd respondent with the following allegations; Her marriage with the petitioner was performed on 24.11.2006 with a prompt dower of Rs.51,000/- as per the Islamic rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Ghoda joda amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, 22 tolas of gold ornaments worth about Rs.2,20,000/- and other costly Jahez articles to the petitioner. After the marriage, Jahez articles were shifted to the house of the petitioner at Murad Nagar. Her parents also gave a Hyundai Santro Car to the petitioner. After the marriage, she and petitioner happily led matrimonial life for few days, and thereafter, the parents of petitioner started harassing her mentally and physically for bringing additional dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is stated that at that point of time, she was working and at the instance of petitioner and his parents, she has resigned the job. It is also alleged that the petitioner was insisting her to write to her parents for bringing additional dowry. Taking advantage of her loneliness, petitioner beat her mercilessly and there was nobody to rescue her, but, thinking that the petitioner will mould himself and can lead a fresh life, she has maintained calm, inspite of the same, he continued the harassment against her for bringing additional dowry. As the complainant did not heed to the request of the petitioner for bringing additional dowry, she was beaten by the petitioner and others on 17th August 2007, for which, she was treated at bone centre at Shalibanda. All her ornaments were retained by the petitioner/accused No.1. In the complaint, it is alleged that the Jahez articles and other costly items like utensils, furniture, household articles and goods were dishonestly misappropriated by the petitioner and he is trying to sell the same. Basing on the aforesaid complaint, which is referred to the Police, a crime is registered against the petitioner and his parents in Crime No.313 of 2009 on the file of the Women Police Station, Charminar, South Zone, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 406 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this criminal petition, it is the case of the petitioner that this private complaint is filed on 18th December 2009, and that earlier, on similar set of allegations, a complaint was already filed against the petitioner and others in Crime No.390 of 2007 on the file of the Women Protection Cell, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, and after completing the investigation, a final report is already filed before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The said final report is filed charging the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. It is submitted that as accused Nos.4 to 6 in the aforesaid crime are outsiders and they were implicated with false allegations, they have approached this Court by filing criminal petition and interim orders are obtained by them and the parents of the petitioner have obtained anticipatory bail in Criminal M.P.No.520 of 2010, granted by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad and the petitioner was also granted conditional bail by this Court. When the passport of the petitioner was seized and was not returned, on the application filed by the petitioner, the said criminal petition No.10607 of 2009 was allowed and directions were issued for issuance of passport on deposit of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was complied with and passport was released. It is alleged that only to harass the petitioner further, the present complaint is filed with similar set of allegations. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has already divorced the 2nd respondent and the same is evident from the divorce certificate, dated 19th March 2009, whereas the present complaint is filed on 18th December 2009 with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner and his parents. Insptie of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of 2nd respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. It is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State that in view of the complaint made by the petitioner, it is a matter for investigation, but no case is made out in this criminal petition to quash the crime registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record, a copy of the final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.390 of 2007, which is registered on the file of Women Protection Cell, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. A perusal of the said final report indicate that even in the aforesaid crime, similar allegations are made, which were investigated into and a final report is filed charging the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The further material is also placed on record to show that when the passport of the petitioner was seized, he approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.10607 of 2009, and this Court has allowed the said application directing the respondents to return the said passport on condition of depositing Rs.4,00,000/-. When the present complaint, which is filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is looked at, the allegations are similar and identical to the allegations made on earlier occasion on the basis of which, a case in Crime No.390 of 2007 was registered. Inspite of the specific allegations against the 2nd respondent herein, though notice is served on her, there is no appearance on her behalf, to oppose this petition. It appears that as the petitioner and others obtained bail in connection with Crime No.390 of 2007, with the similar set of allegations the present complaint is filed in the year 2009. Most of the allegations relate to the period prior to filing of the complaint in Crime No.390 of 2007. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner is not charged for any of the offences having regard to her complaint, the 2nd respondent as well can move the competent Court for framing appropriate charges against the petitioner. But, once the charge sheet is filed after completing the investigation, it is not open for the petitioner to file another complaint on similar set of allegations. It appears that only to harass the petitioner, this private complaint is filed, more so, when it is pleaded that the petitioner has already obtained divorce from the 2nd respondent on 19th of March 2009 and the present complaint is filed on 18th of December 2009. As the allegations made in the present complaint are similar to that of the earlier complaint and as much as final report is already filed in the earlier complaint, this Court is of the view that if investigation is allowed to go on in Crime No.313 of 2009, it will be abuse of the process. Therefore, I deem it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.313 of 2009. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated in Crime No.313 of 2009 on the file of Women Police Station, Charminar, South Zone, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th November 2011 ajr