THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7412 AND 7828 OF 2008 DATED:28-9-2011 Crl. P. No.7412 of 2008 Between: Buthkuri Chandra Reddy and others … Petitioners And Rajidi Kishore Reddy and another … Respondents Crl. P. No.7828 of 2008 Between: Boini Kondaiah and others … Petitioners And Rajidi Kishore Reddy and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.7412 AND 7828 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: Both these petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings initiated in Crime No.62 of 2004 on the file of Devaruppula Police Station, Warangal District. As both the petitions are inter connected, they are being disposed of by this common order. Respondent No.1 in these petitions filed a private complaint against the petitioners under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Janagaon. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Magistrate, Crime No.62 of 2004 was registered on the file of the Devaruppla Police Station, Warangal District, for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 420, 494, 498, 496, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners herein. The petitioners in Crl. P. Nos.7412 and 7828 of 2008 are accused Nos.1 to 6, and 7 to 12 respectively. The complainant – respondent No.1 has alleged in his complaint that he is a resident of Dammannapet Village and accused No.8 – Neelam Ram Reddy, who is petitioner No.2 in Crl.P. No.7828 of 2008, has brought alliance of accused No.6 [petitioner No.6 in Crl. P. No.7412 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner No.6’)] to the complainant for marriage and the marriage of the respondent No.1 with the petitioner No.6 was performed on 26.4.2000 at Devaruppula Village and Mandal. After the marriage, the petitioner No.6 joined the society of the respondent No.1 at Dammannapet and thereafter they shifted to Ausvapur where the respondent No.1 was working. On 5.10.2000 the respondent No.1 along with the petitioner No.6 went to Dammannapet for Dasara and after the festival on 8.10.2000 the petitioner No.6 left to Ausvapur and thereafter she failed to turn up and join the company of the respondent No.1. It is alleged that when the respondent No.1 went to the place of the petitioner No.6, he was threatened and was demanded to pay compensation to the petitioners and get the marriage dissolved. It was further alleged that the respondent No.1 came to know that the petitioner No.6 was earlier married to one P. Rajender Reddy, resident of Hayathnagar, and though the marriage was subsisting, the petitioner No.6 married respondent No.1 and petitioner Nos.1 to 6 s in Crl. P. No.7412 of 2008 petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P. No.7828 of 2008, who are accused Nos.1 to 8 respectively, concealed the earlier marriage of petitioner No.6. It is also alleged that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P. No.7412 of 2008, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, visited the village of the respondent No.1, they abused and threatened him with dire consequences with the help of the petitioner Nos.3 to 6 in Crl.P. No.7828 of 2008 i.e., accused Nos.9 to 12, and took the signatures on stamp paper to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation and also criminally intimidated him not to proceed legally. It is also stated that immediately after the incident, respondent No.1 approached the Police Station, Wardhannapet, on 13.11.2001 and lodged a complaint and when no action was taken, a further complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Warangal, in vain. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 was aware of the earlier marriage of the petitioner No.6 with one Rajender Reddy and the divorce taken with him before the elders, and knowing fully well about the same, the respondent No.1 agreed to marry the petitioner No.6 demanding dowry of Rs.6,00,000/-. It is their further case that earlier on the complaint of the petitioner No.6, a case was registered in Crime No.216 of 2000 of Wardhannapet Police Station against respondent No.1 herein and four others for the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the said Crime No.216 of 2001, after completing the investigation, a final report was also filed stating that the investigation established that the respondent No.1 herein and four others have committed an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, as a counter blast only present complaint has been made by respondent No.1. Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterated the submission made by the petitioners that it is only as a counter blast to the complaint in Crime No.216 of 2001, on the file of the Wardhannapet Police Station, filed by the petitioner No.6, and only to harass the petitioners herein, present complaint in Crime No.62 of 2004 of Devaruppula Police Station was filed by the respondent No.1 herein, by making false allegations not only against petitioner No.6, but also against her family members and elders of in the village, total numbering twelve. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State that in view of the complaint lodged by the first respondent against the petitioners, it is a matter for investigation and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Though notice was served on respondent No.1, none appears on his behalf to oppose these petitions. I have perused the copy of the final report filed in Crime No.216 of 2001 on the file of the Wardhannapet Police Station and the said case was filed by the petitioner No.6 against respondent No.1 herein and four others. In the aforesaid final report, the charge against the respondent No.1 herein and others is that they have committed an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is to be noticed that the said crime was registered in the year 2001 and final report was also filed in the same year against respondent No.1 and four others. The allegations levelled by the first respondent in his private complaint against the petitioners are vague and there are no specific allegations against them. It is to be noticed that the panchayat, wherein it was decided that the first respondent and his father have to repay the dowry amount of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, was held on 26.8.2001 and the document in that regard was executed by the father of the first respondent on 12.9.2001, and even according to the first respondent he lodged a complaint against the petitioners in Wardhannapet Police Station only on 13.11.2001, which is subsequent to the incident of the panchayat and statedly no action has been taken on the said complaint of the first respondent. It is also to be noticed that the present complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 in the month of November, 2004 mainly on the ground that the earlier marriage of the petitioner No.6 was suppressed and though the earlier marriage was subsisting she had married him. However, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P. No.213 of 2000, dt.8.3.2001, it is seen that the earlier marriage between the petitioner No.6 and one Rajender Reddy was dissolved in view of the joint memo filed by the parties. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a subsisting marriage of the petitioner No.6 with one Rajender Reddy. As is evident from the complaint of the first respondent, the marriage between the first respondent and the petitioner No.6 was dissolved pursuant to the decree in O.P. No.92 of 2001 on the file of the learned First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, and even after obtaining the said declaration, on 23.9.2004 the present complaint was filed by the firsts respondent in the Month of November, 2004. It appears that except petitioner No.6, the others petitioners, who are elders in the village and related to petitioner No.6, are no way connected with the case and they were implicated in the case. Even with regard to the allegation of the first respondent in his complaint that petitioner Nos.3 to 6 in Crl.P. No.7828 of 2008, who are accused Nos.9 to 12, took the signature of the first respondent on stamp paper to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation, no particulars of the incident are given relating to date etc. In that view of the matter, it is clear from the record that the first respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioners in November, 2004, much later to the incident of the alleged incident of panchayat and only after obtaining the decree of divorce by him on 23.9.2004. Thus, the nature of the allegations in the complaint of the first respondent reveals that he filed the present complaint against the petitioners only as a counter blast to the charge sheet filed against the him and others in Crime No.216 of 2001 of Wardhannapet Police Station. Hence, it is an abuse of process of the Court and would lead to miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Devaruppula Police Station, Warangal District, are liable to be quashed. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in proceedings in Crime No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Devaruppula Police Station, Warangal District, are quashed. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28.9.2011 bnr