HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.P.No.9964 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners-A1 to A6 in Crime No.34 of 2010 on the file of Pedda Kothapally Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. On a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein and the same having been forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the Station House Officer, P.K.Pally Police Station, registered the case as Crime No.34 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and issued the F.I.R. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent-complainant is the daughter-in-law of A1 and A2 being the wife of their son Ramesh Kumar. The marriage of the 2nd respondent-complainant and the said Ramesh Kumar took place on 11.02.2007 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- apart from gold ornaments towards dowry to A1 and A2. After the marriage, for a period of more than one year, the 2nd respondent-complainant did not conceive any child and as such A1 and A2 started harassing the complainant on the ground that she did not give birth to any child and also she has brought meager dowry. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-complainant gave birth to a male child. It is stated that since the date of marriage, the 2nd respondent-complainant is subjected to harassment for additional dowry at the hands of accused. It is further stated that the accused did not allow the 2nd respondent-complainant and her child into their house on the ground that she did not get more dowry as demanded and also threatened the complainant to kill her if she comes to their house without demanded dowry. Despite the fact that the notice is served on the 2nd respondent-complainant, she has not chosen to put in her appearance. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the present complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners herein in order to pressurize the petitioners 1 to 3 to transfer their properties in favour of her husband, who is none other than the son of petitioners 1 and 2. He further submits that there are civil disputes between the petitioners 1 to 3 and the husband of the 2nd respondent and in that regard petitioners 1 to 3 instituted suits and obtained injunction orders against the husband of the 2nd respondent to safeguard their properties. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court looked into the record. No doubt there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and in the normal circumstances; this Court would not have entertained this petition. However, from a perusal of the documents annexed to the present petition, it is clear that there are civil disputes between petitioners 1 to 3 and the husband of the 2nd respondent. Petitioners 1 to 3 filed three suits i.e., O.S.Nos.41, 39 and 38 of 2010 respectively and obtained interim injunction orders restraining the husband of the 2nd respondent i.e., son of petitioners 1 and 2 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Apart from that petitioners 1 to 4 and the 2nd respondent are residents of Tandur, which is in Rangareddy District, whereas the present complaint has been lodged by the 2nd respondent before Pedda Kothapally police station, Mabhabubnagar District, which in my considered view has no jurisdiction. In fact, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners sent notice to the 2nd respondent to her address at House No.4-3-34/12C, opposite to M.P.T. Function Hall, Valmikinagar, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent and she has put her signature. Hence, it is clear that the 2nd respondent is a resident of Tandur, but for obvious reasons she has suppressed the said fact and chosen to file the complaint at Pedda Kothapally police station, Mahabubnagar District, which has no jurisdiction and that the said complaint cannot be entertained. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that a false complaint has been foisted by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners herein and that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners-A1 to A6 in Crime No.34 of 2010 on the file of Pedda Kothapally Police Station, Mahabubnagar District, are hereby quashed. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 18.01.2011 Gsn.