IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3006 of 2007 Between: Penubothu Krishna Veni, W/o.Ganga Vara Prasad Rao Aged about 78 years, Surya Apartments, Kakatiya Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal And three others. …Petitioners / Accused AND Penubothu Padmaja, W/o. P.V.Lakshmi Suresh Kumar, Aged about 38 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada. And another …Respondents / Complainants The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3006 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Accused Nos. 2 to 5 for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.438 of 2006 on the file of the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Vijayawada relating to offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 448, 324 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 was husband of the victim woman by name Padmaja. A-1 is not figuring as petitioner herein. A-2 is mother, A-3 is elder brother and A-4 is married sister of A-1. A-5 is husband of A-4. It is stated that A-3 is a contractor in R & B Department at Kurnool, A-4 is working as headmistress of a school at Nellore and A-5 is working as Junior Telecom Officer at Vijayawada. A-1 was working in Railways. Marriage of A-1 with the victim took place on 21.12.1988 at Vijayawada. They have no children. Subsequent to marriage, they lived for some time at Renigunta, Visakhapatnam and other places i.e., wherever A-1 was posted on his employment. After suspension of A-1 from service due to his involvement in Anti Corruption case, he started real estate business. The first respondent/victim filed private complaint before the lower Court and it was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation and report. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the lower Court. It is alleged that since the date of marriage, A-1, at the instance and instigation of A-2 to A-5, was harassing the victim physically, mentally and psychologically and subjected her to cruelty. It is alleged that at the instigation of A-2 to A-5, A-1 was demanding for huge additional dowry from the first respondent’s father and that even after the first respondent’s father paid Rs.50,000/- to A-1, A-1 to A-5 did not stop the activity of harassing the first respondent. It is alleged that A-1 was always in clutches of A-2 to A-5. Finally, the first respondent was stated to have been necked out from family house in June, 2004. It is allegation of the first respondent that her father gifted vacant site of 240 Sq.yards at Krishnalanka, Vijayawada where she constructed three-storied building with amounts advanced by her father and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property by leasing out the same to various tenants. According to the first respondent, on 30.11.2005, at about 09:00 P.M., A-1, A-3 and A-5, along with their followers who are antisocial elements, approached her and demanded her to vacate the said building and to sell the same to them by trespassing into the property. The first respondent further contends that she was beaten by A-1 at the instigation of A-2 to A-5 on several occasions causing injuries to her. It is further alleged that A-1 and other accused attempted to kill her on several occasions. It is also alleged that while necking her out of family house, A-1 retained her dowry amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and also gold ornaments weighing 30 sovereigns. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that A-1 filed O.P.No.614 of 2004 in Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce against the first respondent and that by the order dated 18.10.2004, the Family Court, Hyderabad granted ex parte decree of divorce in his favour. On the other hand, the first respondent’s counsel says that the first respondent applied for setting aside ex parte decree. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that petition filed by the first respondent for setting aside ex parte decree was dismissed by the family Court and that ex parte decree of divorce has become final. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that since the case is one arising out of marital dispute, it may not survive subsequent to grant of divorce on 18.10.2004. The first respondent filed private complaint before the lower Court on 18.12.2005. Therefore, it is urged by the petitioners’ counsel that by the date of presentation of private complaint before the lower Court by the first respondent, there was no subsisting marriage between the first respondent and A-1 and therefore, the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code cannot survive in this case. In my opinion, the contention of the petitioners’ counsel in this regard is not correct and legal. For judging the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C., the Court has to see whether there was any relationship of wife and husband between the victim and the accused by the date of commission of offence; and it is wholly immaterial whether such relationship existed or ceased to exist by the date of complaint. In this case, as per allegations in the complaint as well as in statements of the victim and witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., the alleged harassment took place in June, 2004 and prior to it by which dates marriage between the first respondent and A-1 was subsisting. Therefore, the factum of taking divorce subsequent to commission of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. will not have any bearing on the offences. Subsequent divorce between the parties will not exonerate the husband, his family members and relations from liability under Section 498-A of I.P.C., in case it is proved by the prosecution during trial. It is contended by the first respondent’s counsel that not only instigation of A-1, but also specific instances of harassment of her by A-2 to A-5 were stated by the first respondent in her statement to the police under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., during investigation. Therefore, it is a matter to be evaluated by the lower Court after full trial during which the victim as well as her witnesses will be subjected to cross-examination by the accused. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the case insofar as A-2 to A-5 are concerned. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________​_________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 27, 2009 BVV