HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 4868 of 2009 DATED: 28.12.2011 Between: Mohd. Mustafa and three others .. Petitioners And 1. The State of A.P. 2. Station House Officer 3. Mehven Saba .. Respondents O R D E R:- Heard Sri S.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen that the de facto complainant i.e. the 3rd respondent herein has not been served. 3. The petitioners herein are A1 to A4 in C.C. No. 1020 of 2007 on the file of the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st petitioner is said to be the husband of the de facto complainant while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are stated to be his parents and the 4th petitioner, the brother of the 1st petitioner. 4. The offences alleged against the petitioners are those punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 read with 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the petitioners were in the United Arab Emirates even on the date of giving F.I.R. and since sometime prior thereto and therefore they cannot be said to have committed the offences relating to dowry harassment falling under Section 498-A IPC or under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de facto complainant was divorced by the 1st petitioner on 09.02.2007 and she married again and is now living in a foreign country. The matter was adjourned twice to get information about the second marriage of the de facto complainant by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, but he could not get the information. Be that as it may, another offence that is alleged against the petitioners is one under Section 420 IPC. The allegation in this behalf is that the de facto complainant’s husband was already a married man and concealing the same all the petitioners performed the marriage of the 1st petitioner again with the de facto complainant and the averments of the de facto complainant is that she would not have agreed to her marriage with the 1st petitioner if she had known about the first marriage of the 1st petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are Muslims and if the 1st petitioner had married earlier that is not an offence and this was known to the de facto complainant. Whether the 1st marriage of the 1st petitioner was known to the de facto complainant and whether she agreed to her marriage with the 1st petitioner knowing about the same is a disputed question of fact which has to be decided only on evidence in trial or in an inquiry in a discharge petition. Thus, so far as the offence under Section 420 IPC is concerned, it can be said that there are allegations in the charge sheet which do show the said offence. 7. Then, turning to the other offences, the main plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners again is that the petitioners were not in India at all and he has filed certain passport copies of the petitioners in support of the said plea whereas the de facto complainant’s version is that the marriage took place on 25.11.2005 and ever since then there has been a demand for additional dowry from all the petitioners. The allegations would show even the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and whether the plea of the petitioners can be accepted or not again becomes a disputed question of fact which can be decided only by trial Court. The petitioners are now described as residents of United Arab Emirates. 8. In the above circumstances, all the contentions raised by the petitioners would fall within the purview of the disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed and it shall be open for the petitioners to raise all their objections before the learned Magistrate. It is made clear that the petitioners can raise their objections even with regard to the applicability of Section 188 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate may consider all the said objections and dispose of the matter. As and when the petitioners appear before the trial Court, it shall be open for them to make applications for dispensing with their presence before it and they can be decided by the learned Magistrate. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 28.12.2011 bcj