IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5890 OF 2010 Between:- P.Kishore Kumar and two others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5890 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in D.V.C.No.1042 of 2009, on the file of the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the second respondent, though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. The second respondent is the wife of first petitioner. Second petitioner is the father of first petitioner. Third petitioner is brother of first petitioner. The second respondent filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women (from Domestic Violence) Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) and the same was taken cognizance in D.V.C.No.1042 of 2009. According to the second respondent-complainant, her marriage with the first petitioner was solemnized on 29-04-2007 and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.6 lakhs was given as dowry besides 15 tolas of gold jewellery, one gold chain and ring to the first petitioner and Rs.50,000/- for clothes, besides furniture and other household articles. The complainant alleges that some time after marriage, the petitioners herein started harassing her physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh and when the complainant’s parents expressed their inability to meet the demand, the petitioners beat the complainant and drove her out of the house on 05-09-2007. Thereupon, the complainant lodged a report with the police, which was registered as F.I.R.No.350 of 2007 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She also filed a case for maintenance in M.C.No.260 of 2007 and also O.P.No.458 of 2008 for divorce. The first petitioner filed O.P.No.52 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights. The complainant alleges that on 18-01-2009 the petitioners approached her and demanded her to withdraw the maintenance case and threatened that if she fails to do so, she would face dire consequences. The complainant filed the present case under the provisions of the Act seeking protection to her life from the hands of the petitioners, as she apprehends physical assault, besides mental agony. She also seeks a direction to the petitioners herein for return of household articles and gold and also a direction to the first petitioner- husband to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and a direction to all the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. 4. The fact that several cases are pending between the parties indicates that there has been acute differences and disputes between them. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that previously based on the report of the complainant a case in Cr.No.320 of 2007 was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.932 of 2007 and after full-fledged trial, the case ended in acquittal of petitioners on 29-08-2008 and the present case filed under the provisions of the Act making self- same allegations is only an abuse of process of law. 5. It is to be noted that the scope and ambit of the two cases is distinct and separate. In C.C.No.932 of 2007, the petitioners were prosecuted for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. No doubt, the said case ended in acquittal. However, the allegation in the present complaint is that the petitioners have been harassing and intimidating the complainant to withdraw M.C.No.260 of 2007. The complainant is, therefore, seeking protection from the petitioners from physical assault and mental torture and is also claiming compensation. Of course, the complainant also claims maintenance and in the event of any maintenance being granted in M.C.No.260 of 2007, the same would certainly be taken note of while considering the claim for maintenance in D.V.C.No.1042 of 2009. The special enactment enables the aggrieved person to seek the reliefs of the nature as prayed for by the complainant in D.V.C.No.1042 of 2009. The fact that earlier C.C.No.932 of 2007 ended in acquittal of the petitioners does not ipso facto bar the proceedings under the Act and such proceedings initiated under the Act cannot be dubbed as abuse of process of law, especially when the pleaded cause of action for filing the said case is distinct and separate. In view of the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners to the effect that they have been threatening and intimidating the complainant with a view to force her to withdraw M.C.No.260 of 2007, it is considered not a fit case to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in D.V.C.No.1042 of 2009, inasmuch the truth or otherwise of the said allegations can come out only during the course of enquiry. 6. In the circumstances, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in D.V.C.No.1042 of 2009, on the file of the II-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th December, 2010 Lrkm.