HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7269 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners herein are accused in C.C.No.513 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 506(2), 307 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. Briefly, the allegations in the complaint are that initially, the defacto complainant, first respondent herein, filed a complaint before Nidadavole Town P.S., West Godavari District, against the petitioners alleging that the 1st petitioner is her husband and their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.1995 at Tuni, and after marriage, the petitioners started harassing her for additional dowry. Having received the complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.86 of 1998 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the competent criminal court. While so, during trial, there was a compromise between the parties and hence the case ended in acquittal on 29.12.2000. Even thereafter, as the petitioners started harassing the 1st respondent for money, she filed a private complaint before the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to Nidadavole Town P.S., for investigation and report. After receiving the complaint, the police numbered the same as Crime No.117 of 2004 and after completion of investigation referred the case as false. Being aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed a protest petition before the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, and on that basis the case was taken on file as C.C.No.513 of 2006. The same is under challenge in this Criminal Petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is mainly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.C. Praveen Kumar, that on an earlier occasion the 1st respondent filed a complaint before Nidadavole Town P.S. against the petitioners and on the basis of which, a case in crime No.86 of 1998 was registered by Nidadavole P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was also filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.40 of 1998 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur. When the matter was pending, there was a settlement between the parties and the 1st respondent joined the company of the 1st petitioner and as there was no evidence in support of the case of the prosecution, the court below acquitted the petitioners by judgment dated 29.12.2000. Again with the same set of facts, the present complaint has been given and the police after thorough investigation referred the same as false and as such the court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the said offence against the petitioners. 5. May be the facts are one and the same, but it does not mean that the 1st respondent is precluded from lodging another complaint. Further, even if the police referred it as false, it is still open for the court to take cognizance of the offence after recording the sworn statement of the 1st respondent. Hence, I am not in agreement with the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. However, having gone through the sworn statement of the first respondent, this Court is of the view that the allegations are only against her husband the 1st petitioner but not against the other petitioners who are none other than her mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, brother-in-law and concubine of the 1st petitioner respectively. From the sworn statement, what could be seen is that there are allegations, but the said allegations are omnibus in nature. For instance, in the sworn statement of 1st respondent it is stated that “A.2 to A.5 instigated A.1 to beat me and abuse me. A.1 to A.5 continued their harassment for more dowry and continued abusing me and beating me”. In my considered view, the said allegations are omnibus in nature and that is not the requirement under law. Therefore, the first respondent shall come forward with foolproof allegations against the petitioners to make out an offence punishable under Section 498-A. 7. In the light of the above, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there are no allegations against petitioners 2 to 6. If at all there is any case, the same is only against the 1st petitioner. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned proceedings in so far as petitioners 2 to 6 are concerned are nothing but abuse of process of court. 8. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.513 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, in so far as petitioners 2 to 6 are concerned, are hereby quashed and the Criminal Petition, in so far as 1st petitioner is concerned, is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 7th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7269 of 2007 (Partly allowed) Date:07.07.2010 CBS