IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6109 OF 2010 Between:- Dr.Mohammed Azhar Hussain …Petitioner A n d Mrs.Kurshid Jahan and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.6109 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of further proceedings against petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in Cr.No.585 of 2009 of W.P.S., C.C.S., Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the first respondent. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 and A-4 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. According to the complainant, she is the legally wedded wife of A-1, their marriage having been performed on 03-07-2009. A-2 is the first wife of A-1 and A-3 is the mother of A-1 and A-4 is the maternal aunt of A-1. It is alleged that at the time of marriage on demand of the accused 15 totals of gold and clothes worth Rs.50,000/- were given to the accused and within three days after the marriage, A-1 started demanding Rs.5 lakhs and when the complainant expressed inability, A-1 became wild and beat the complainant mercilessly at the instigation of A-2 to A-4. Before marriage, the accused represented that A-1 had no issues through A-2 and, therefore, he intended to marry for a second time, but subsequent to marriage, the accused revealed that A-1 was having children through A-2. It is further alleged that on 10-07-2009 on account of failure of complainant to meet the demand for additional dowry, she was sent out of the house with wearing apparel. A-1 left for UAE along with A-2 without informing the complainant and when contacted, A-3 and A-4 gave evasive replies. The complainant went to UAE along with her brother on 01-08- 2009 and tried to contact A-1, but he refused to take her and threatened that if the demanded amount is not paid, he shall pronounce divorce immediately. The complainant and her brother had to return back to Hyderabad in September, 2009. The said complaint was forwarded to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the C.C.S., Police registered a case in Cr.No.585 of 2009. The investigation is still pending. 4. The petitioners seek quashing of further proceedings in FIR No.585 of 2009 on the ground that the marriage performed on 03-07-2009 between the complainant and A-1 was dissolved by divorce on 13-07-2009 by Quazi in the presence of witnesses. According to the first petitioner/A- 1, the de facto complainant was not fit for matrimonial life and the doctor also declared that the complainant is not fit to bear children and thereafter the marriage was dissolved by divorce and mehr and maintenance were paid to the complainant. The accused further alleged that the complainant along with her brother came to Dubai and filed a complaint before the Sharjah Court and the Court referred her to Government hospital for medical check up and it was found that she was suffering from ‘crushing syndrome’ and later she failed to attend the Court and her petition was dismissed. 5. The truth or otherwise of the rival contentions can be ascertained only after completion of investigation. The alleged dissolution of the marriage by divorce in the presence of quazi and witnesses, is also a matter to be investigated into. The averments in the complaint are clear and categorical, prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 498-A IPC. The investigation is in the threshold stage. Unless the investigation is allowed to be completed, the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the complainant and the counter allegations made by the first petitioner/A-1 cannot come out. When the complaint read as a whole prima facie discloses commission of the alleged offences, it is neither just nor desirable to thwart investigation by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. It is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and they cannot be invoked to scuttle the investigation 7. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to quash further investigation into the complaint in F.I.R.No.585 of 2009 of W.P.S., C.C.S., Hyderabad 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd November,2010 Lrkm.