THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6488 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.659 of 2007 on the file of the court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and under sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 3 The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The de facto complainant by name P. Vijaya Lakshmi was married to the first accused in the case in the year 1993. Then her parents gave Rs.60,000/- in cash and 15 tolas of gold towards dowry to him. Subsequently all the accused harassed her for bringing additional dowry. The accused No.1 field O.P.No.103 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Senior Civil Judge, L.G. Nagar R.R. District seeking divorce. Hence she lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Women P.S. Begumpet, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.64 of 2005 on his file. After the completion of the investigation of the case, the police filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognisance of by the trial court as C.C.No.659 of 2007. Questioning the same, the accused has filed the present petition. 4 The learned counsel for the accused has contended that there are no specific allegations against the accused Nos.2 & 3 and that the first accused had already obtained divorce in the year 2007 in O.P.No.103 of 2005, which was filed even prior to the filing of the present complaint by the de facto complainant and it shows that she filed the complaint as a counter blast to the said O.P. only and prayed to quash the proceedings. 5 On the other hand the learned counsel for the de facto complainant has contended that obtaining a decree of divorce by the first accused is not a ground to quash the proceedings against all the accused and hence prayed to dismiss the present petition. 6 Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7 Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings in the C.C.No.659 of 2007? 8 I have gone through the entire record. It shows that at the instance of A.2 and A.3, A.1 harassed the de facto complainant. But there are no specific allegations against A.2 and A.3. In fact, the allegations levelled against A.2 and A.3 are bald in nature. It is needless to say that several false complaints are being filed in cases of this nature and they are to be strictly scrutinised before taking cognisance of them for prosecuting such persons. But a perusal of the entire case record reveals that there are specific and wild allegations against the first accused alone. Simply because the first accused obtained a decree of divorce in O.P.No.103 of 2005, that too subsequent to the filing of the present complaint, it is not a ground to quash the proceedings against the first accused also. 9 Accordingly this petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in so far as the accused 2 and 3 in C.C.No.659 of 2007 on the file of the court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are concerned, are hereby quashed. However, this petition, in so far as the first accused in the case is concerned is dismissed. ---------------------------------------- G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. 14.10.2011 Kvsn