THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7983 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner preferred this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against him in P.R.C.No. 25 of 2011, pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapet, East Godavari District, wherein he is arrayed as Accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Accused No.2 in the present crime preferred Criminal Petition No.7872 of 2011 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings against her and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 05.09.2011. In the said Criminal Petition No.7872 of 2011, learned counsel for the petitioner raised as many as 13 points for consideration, which are reproduced hereunder: “1) The Prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the marriage in between Defacto complainant and petitioner (A1) is love marriage, which was held on 10.4.2010. The marriage was held without consent of Defacto complainant’s parents and Accused No.1’s widow mother. The question asking dowry does not arise. 2) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto complainant/Respondent No.2 foisted a false complaint under sections 498-A & 354 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. 3) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto complainant passed M.Sc., and worked as Asst. Professor in Sri Ramachandra Engg. College, Eluru and A-1 also well educated person. A-01 passed B.A. and Diploma in Hotel Management. The Hon’ble High Court Division Bench held that the Educated women resorting to proceedings U/s 498-A IPC is abuse process of law. I filed copy of Judgment for this Honourable Court kind consideration. 4) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that after marriage, Defacto Complainant and her husband (A-1) never talked with the petitioner (A-2) Petitioner also neither visited the Defacto complainant house nor her parents house also. At the same time they are also not visited the petitioner’s house. Defacto complainant foisted a false complainant with exaggerated allegations. The prosecution also not charged that allegations. 5) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant and A-1 lived very short period of 6 months i.e. from 10-4-2010 to 28-11-2010. During the period both lived separately in two houses (1) Opposite to Brundavan Park, Pathebada, Eluru, West Godavari District, (2) Chodimiella (V), Near R.T.A. Office, Eluru. 6) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant foisted a false case against the petitioner (A-2) under Sections 498-A, 354 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 7) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the petitioner herein woman and widow. The Section 354 I.P.C. does not attract to the petitioner. 8) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the statements of Defacto Complainant and L.W.2 to L.W.89 are close relatives. Their statements are one and the same in favour of Defacto Complainant. 9) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that as per petitioner’s caste customs, if any dowry give, to their daughter only. 10) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the A-1 used to spend huge amounts for the welfare of Defacto Complainant and her sister. I filed copy of Bank statements for this Hon’ble Court kind consideration. 11) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant and her father demanded A-1 to deposit an amount of Rs. 3.00 lakhs in favour of Defacto Complainant and Regd. Agricultural land of an extent of Ac.2.00 in the name of Defacto Complainant for her life security. Due to this Civil Dispute, Defacto Complainant deserted the Accused No.1. Defacto Complainant herself voluntarily went away to her parents house and foisted a false case. Here Defacto Complainant had not necked out from matrimonial house and no harm caused to life and limb. So, the Section 498-A I.P.C. does not attract. 12) The prosecution/Investigation Officer ought to have seen that the Defacto Complainant and A-1 lived in Chodimella (V), Eluru Rural Mandal, West Godavari District, entire cause of arose in Eluru Rural P.S. West Godavari District. But, Defacto Complainant made false complaint in Atreypura Police Station, East Godavari District. The Atreyapuram P.S. has no power authority and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. On the sole ground the P.R.C. No. 25/2011 to be quashed. 13) The prosecution/Investigation Officer failed to consider the Defacto Complainant apology letter written by with her own handwriting. This Honourable Court may be pleased to compare apology letter and with her own handwriting. As per apology letter Defacto Complainant committed very big mistake and spoiled the lives of A-1 and Petitioner (A2) by foisting the false complaint. On the sole ground the P.R.C.No. 25/2011 to be quashed.” In the present case, apart from reiterating 13 points that are raised in Criminal Petition No.7872 of 2011, which are referred to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein lodged a complaint against his father-in-law in connection with demand of Rs.3,00,000/- and registration of Ac.2.00 of agricultural land in favour of the defacto complainant for her life security, but the same was not registered, and in order to take vengeance against the petitioner for lodging a complaint against his father-in-law, the present false complaint is filed, hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the grounds on which the learned counsel for the petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner are not reasonable grounds to allow this petition. Further, the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the demand made by the father-in-law of the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- and to register the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in favour of the de facto complaint was only for the purpose of life security of the de facto complaint, and this clearly establishes the fact that the petitioner harassed the de facto complainant prior to his lodging a complaint against his father-in-law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. However, since the allegations leveled against the petitioner arose out of matrimonial dispute and the question of identity of the accused does not arise, the presence of the petitioner before the committal Court as well as the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates the learned Magistrate insists for his presence and the petitioner shall be properly represented by his counsel before the trial Court. __________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 06.09.2011 v v