THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12547 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners – A-1 to A-3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.1118 of 2010 dated 20-11-2010 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 378 and 405 IPC based on the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 – complainant, who is husband of petitioner No.1. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 3. Petitioner No.1 is wife of respondent No.2 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his parents-in-law. 4. Based on the private complaint filed by respondent No.2, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, referred the matter to Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad for investigation and its report and the police of Kukatpally registered the above crime against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 378 and 405 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially petitioner No.1, who is wife of respondent No.2, filed a police complaint against him and his parents on 20-09-2010 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC before Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur and the same was registered as FIR No.201 of 2010, in which, he (respondent No.2) was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and later released on bail. Therefore, having grudge against the petitioners, respondent No.2 foisted the present case against them, suppressing the real facts, alleging that they have stolen gold and silver ornaments, cash and other valuable items etc. from his house while he was in judicial custody. Further, the case of the petitioners is that the gold ornaments, which are said to be stolen by the petitioners, are belonging to the petitioners presented to respondent No.2 at the time of marriage and all those ornaments were pledged by him to Muthoot Finance Limited, Guntur Branch and availed loans for his bad vices. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 – complainant submits that only after completion of investigation real facts would come into light and now there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings against the petitioners. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation into the crime is not yet completed. 8. A perusal of the material on record reveals that prior to the present complaint, petitioner No.1, who is wife of respondent No.2, lodged a complaint against him before Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District and the same was registered as FIR No.201 of 2010 dated 20-09-2010 and in the said case, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08-10-2010 and released on bail on 22-10-2010. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint for the alleged offences against the petitioners before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally and on reference the police of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad registered the present crime against them. 9. The case of respondent No.2 is that petitioners have stolen gold and silver ornaments, cash and other valuable items from his house on 13-10-2010, on which day he was in judicial custody. If really, petitioners have stolen those articles on that day from the house of respondent No.2, the watchman, who was said to be present at the time of theft in the house according to respondent No.2 himself, would have given the complaint on that day itself. Further, there is no satisfactory explanation from respondent No.2 for the case of the petitioners that the ornaments alleged to have stolen by them belong to themselves presented by them to him at the time of marriage and he pledged the same to Muthoot Finance Limited, Guntur Branch and availed loans for his bad vices. Thus, he has not denied the case of the petitioners. Even the gold ornaments alleged to have been stolen by the petitioners appear to be of petitioner No.1. It also appears that since petitioner No.1 gave complaint against respondent No.2 on 20- 09-2010 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC before Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur and it was registered as FIR No.201 of 2010 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, to take vengeance, he foisted this case against the petitioners immediately after his release on bail taking the advantage of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 going to his house along with the police personnel during the course of investigation in that case against him for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Furthermore, it is highly improbable to believe that petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are women, along with petitioner No.3 have stolen the alleged articles from the house of respondent No.2, who is none other than the husband of petitioner No.1 and son-in-law of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Thus, there is no prima facie material against the petitioners and the balance of convenience is in their favour. 10. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioners by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.1118 of 2010 dated 20-11-2010 on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J November 3, 2011. PV