THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.684 of 2009 Date:02nd November, 2011 Between: Karanam Vijaya Kumar Goud ..... Petitioner AND 1) State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.684 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by Karanam Vijaya Kumar Goud under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceeding in Crime No.9 of 2009 of Women Police Station, Nalgonda, so far as he is concerned. 2. The petitioner has a son by name Subhodh Goud. He sent his son to Australia for the purpose of prosecuting Masters Degree. 2nd respondent Nalla Kalyani also went to Australia for the purpose of prosecuting her Masters Degree. Subhodh Goud and the 2nd respondent fell in love with each other and lived together for four years in one room and thereafter got married on 29.07.2008. After three months of marriage, Subhodh Goud returned to India. His parents and his relatives prevailed upon him not to join with the 2nd respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent belongs to a lower caste. She presented a report before the Women Police Station, Nalgonda, alleging that Subhodh Goud, who is her husband, and relatives of her husband abused her in filthy language and demanded additional dowry. Basing on her report, a case in Crime No.9 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC came to be registered. Hence, the petitioner, who is arrayed as 2nd accused in the above crime, filed the present petition with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on 05.02.2009. 4. Heard leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent has not whispered the name of the petitioner in the report presented by her to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nalgonda, and therefore, continuation of proceeding against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel refers the report presented by the 2nd respondent before the Police in support of his submissions. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant submits that the family members of Subhodh Goud including the petitioner herein abused the 2nd respondent and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the report presented by the 2nd respondent before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Nalgonda. The name of the petitioner does not find place in the said report. She attributed specific accusations to other family members. No specific accusations have been made against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent does not claim to have lived in her in-laws house. She also does not state that the petitioner herein, who is the father of her husband, made any telephone calls to her. When there are no specific accusations attributable to the petitioner in the report presented by the 2nd respondent, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceeding in Crime No.9 of 2009 of Women Police Station, Nalgonda, against the petitioner alone. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.684 of 2009 Date:02nd November, 2011