HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 6521 of 2008 DATED: 25.11.2011 Between: Punjala Nagaraj and three others .. Petitioners And 1. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor 2. P. Chandra Sekhar .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Criminal Petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 531 of 2004 on the file of 13th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Nampally, registered for oﬀences punishable under Sections, 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the ground that various allegations made against the petitioners/accused in the case with regards to harassment for dowry against the daughter of 2nd respondent i.e. the de facto complainant in the case namely Divya were already discussed in the judgment dated 16.12.2003 in S.C. No. 332 of 2002 on the ﬁle of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and in the judgment dated 19.04.2008 delivered by this Court in Crl.A. No. 1332 of 2003 concerned with the same parties and hence they cannot be tried again on the same grounds. The trial Court, while dealing with charges framed under Sections 498-A and 304(B) IPC, found the petitioners (A1 to A3) guilty and convicted and sentenced them in the said Sessions Case and on appeal, this Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against them. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the charge sheet ﬁled in the present case / corresponding charge sheet filed in the earlier case. The facts of the two cases are as follows: On 22.12.1999, A1 was proposed to the daughter of the de complainant namely Divya in marriage. A1, his parents i.e. A2 and A3 and A1’s brother i.e. A4 demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry, and the de facto complainant expressed his inability to give such huge amount, but on discussions, he agreed to give Rs.2.25 lakhs apart from 25 tulas of gold, ½ kg of silver, furniture, utensils and clothes. T h e de facto complainant, his wife, Sanjeeva Rao, Kamala, Ram Moorthy, Srinivas, Shanker and others went to the house of the accused for ﬁxing the marriage date and for writing of Lagna Pathrika, and accordingly, the date of the marriage was ﬁxed as 24.02.2000 and Lagna Pathrika was prepared. Then, A2 and A3 demanded the de facto complainant to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs out of the agreed dowry of Rs.2.25 lakhs, and the de facto complainant gave cheque No.180555, dated 22.12.1999 for that amount drawn on Central Bank of India, Charminar Branch, Hyderabad in favour of A1 and handed over it to A2 in the presence of the said persons and it was got encashed by A2 on 24.12.1999. After the marriage, the de facto complainant gave Rs.25,000/-, 25 tulas of gold ornaments, ½ kilogram of silver articles, colour T.V. furniture, utensils and clothes to the accused. Thereafter, A1 and the daughter of the de facto complainant led happy marital life for three months. In the month of September 2000, A1 to A4 summoned the de facto complainant to their house and demanded him to bear the expenses of A1 for going to U.S.A. for which he expressed his inability. Again, in the month of December 2000, A1 to A4 summoned the de facto complainant and demanded him to give Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry, but again the de facto complainant expressed his inability to comply with the demand. Because of the non-payment of the additional dowry, A1 to A4 subjected the daughter of the de facto complainant to unbearable harassment, as a result of which, she committed suicide on 06.06.2001. On a report given by the de facto complainant, the case was registered in Cr.No.77 of 2001 against A1 to A4 on the ﬁle of Kanchanbagh Police Station and necessary investigation was done. Consequently, charge sheet was ﬁled and A1 to A4 were tried for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304(B) IPC whereas the trial Court, based on the evidence adduced, found A1 to A3 guilty of the said oﬀences and convicted and sentenced them while acquitting A4 as referred and against the judgment of conviction, A1 to A3 preferred Crl.A.No.1332 of 2003, and this Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. In fact, on the basis of the evidence adduced against the accused and after elaborate discussion, this Court observed that the prosecution utterly failed to establish the question of demand of dowry, and even supposing that there was demand of money on account of any ﬁnancial stringency or to meet any urgent domestic expenses, the same would not be termed as dowry. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether suﬃcient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings on the said question. It is pertinent to note that in fact, the de facto complaint issued a receipt, a copy of which, is ﬁled before this Court with regards to returning back of gold and silver articles to the deceased by him (de facto complainant) which may establish the bona ﬁdes of A1 to A4. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that no charges were framed under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in the earlier case and hence those charges can be tried in the later case. As contended by the learned counsel for A1 to A3, emphatically all the factors raised in the case on hand regarding the question of demand and payment of dowry were considered in the earlier case by the trial Court and the Appellate Court even though no corresponding charges were framed under Sections, 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, under Sections 498-A and 304 (B) IPC, the question of payment of dowry or demand for payment of additional dowry in the same context, were to be considered. Therefore, it is not material whether the charges under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed and discussed speciﬁcally in the earlier case. Therefore, if the present proceedings are allowed to continue, it amounts to trying A1 to A3 for the same oﬀences or irrespective of the same allegations once again which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the Calendar Case on hand is liable to be quashed as the grounds alleged against A1 to A3 in the present proceedings were already considered in the earlier case. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 531 of 2004 on the file of 13th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, Nampally. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 25.11.2011 bcj