HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2004 OF 2007 DATE:20.11.2009 Between: Syd. Musleahuddin @ Sayeed and 7 others …….Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2004 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Accused 1 to 8 for quashing proceeding in C.C.No.16 of 2001 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) presently re-designated as XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad relating to the offence punishable under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim is wife of A-1. The victim died in a fire incident after suffering burns. In that connection S.C.No.244 of 2000 was filed by the police for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners 1 to 5 and 7. After trial, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad acquitted all of them of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Now the private complaint is filed by mother of the deceased alleging the offence punishable under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against A-1 to A-8 in the lower court. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-4 and A-5 are brothers of A-1. A-6 and A-7 are sisters of A-1. A-8 is wife of A-1’s another brother. It is stated that A-1 is in Saudi Arabia, A-4 is in Muscat, A-6 and A-8 are in Saudi Arabia along with their respective husbands as house wives and A-7 is a Government doctor working in Maharashtra State. After registration of the case, the police sized certain articles from matrimonial house at Hyderabad on orders of the court and produced the same before the lower court. The lower court gave interim custody of those articles to the defacto-complainant who is the 2nd respondent herein, after obtaining bond for Rs.50,000/-. In the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, it is alleged by the defacto-complainant as well as by the Investigating officer respectively that in spite of efforts made by the defacto-complainant to take back jewellery and jahez articles which were given to the deceased in marriage, from the accused, A-1 to A-8 refused to return those articles. It is alleged that the said jewellery and jahez articles were entrusted to all the accused at the time of marriage. The question of entrusting jewellery and jahez articles of the deceased to younger members of the family like brothers, sisters and sisters- in-law may not arise at all. By the date of private complaint some of those younger members of the family were students. Even as per tradition and custom prevailing in any community, entrustment of articles or jewellery belonging to the bride to younger members of the family will not take place. Therefore, it is evident that private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent as against A-4 to A-8 is nothing but malafide. It is well settled principle of law that malafide prosecution cannot be allowed to go on. In so far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned, they being husband and parents-in-law of the deceased and since articles belonging to the deceased were seized from matrimonial house at Hyderabad, A-1 to A-3, in my opinion cannot escape prosecution. It will be too early for this Court to come to any conclusion in one way or the other in so far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned. In the result the Criminal petition is partly allowed quashing C.C.No.16 of 2001 in so far as the petitioners 4 to 8 (A-4 to A-8) are concerned. The Criminal Petition in other respects is partly dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J 20th November, 2009 Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2004 OF 2007 Date:20.11.2009 Gk.