THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6615 of 2008 This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.88 of 2003 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The respondent No.1 here in has filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that the complainant was given in marriage to A.1 and their marriage was took place on 15.03.1998 and the accused have demanded deferred amount of Rs.15,000/- plus 2 Dinar-e-Sharie, cash of Rs.50,000/-, 10 tulas of gold and other jehaz articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- including one Bajaj Scooter. As per the demand of the accused, father of the complainant agreed to give Rs.50,000/- cash and jehaz articles and he has paid the cash of Rs.50,000/- about 15 days prior to the marriage. After the marriage, complainant was brought to the house of the accused along with jehaz articles and the accused behaved properly with the complainant for few weeks. Thereafter, at the instigation of A.2, A.3, A.5, A.6 and A.8, A.1 started ill-treating the complainant, A.4, A.7 and A.9 also participated in abusing and misbehaving with the complainant. A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6 used to force the complainant to serve them as maidservant without providing proper food in order to subject the complainant mental cruelty. After two months of marriage, A.2 to A.9 started instigating the A.1 to demand Rs.3,00,000/- as additional dowry for getting visa to go to London. Thereupon, they started harassing the complainant for additional dowry. On 23.06.1998 all the accused beat the complainant for not bringing the additional dowry. A.1 has developed illegal intimacy with the T.V.artist and started to bringing the said lady to the house and also threatened the complainant to get additional dowry, otherwise he is going to marry the said lady. On 23.07.1998, the parents of the complainant went to the house of complainant and held meeting with regard to ill-treatment of the complainant by the accused, all the accused repeated their demand for additional dowry and the accused continued their harassment for getting additional dowry. The complainant also attempted to commit suicide for the mental and physical cruelty caused to her. Finally on 07.02.1999 another meeting was conveyed in the house of the accused with regard to the harassment and cruelty and the demand for additional dowry, all the accused adamantly turned a deaf ear and went away and they continued the harassment. The said complaint was referred to Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad for investigation and report. Thereupon, a case in Crime No.60 of 2000 was registered and after completion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioners’ counsel has pleaded that all the offences alleged by the prosecution are barred by limitation and he also further pleaded that the cognisance was also taken by the Court after period of limitation, as such the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand pleaded that the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is Five years, as such there is no limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the charge sheet is field within limitation period and as such the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings. The petitioners’ counsel has not disputed about the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is five years and he further pleaded even then the complaint is barred by limitation and the charge sheet is filed after limitation and the cognizance was also taken by the Court after two years of filing charge sheet. As per the charge sheet, the incident has taken place on 23.06.1998, 23.07.1998 and 07.02.1999 and the charge sheet was filed on 03.09.2001 and the cognizance was taken by the Court on 18.03.2003. Under Section 468 (3) Cr.P.C. the period of limitation, in relation to offences, which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence, which is punishable with the more severe punishment or as the case may be, the most severe punishment. In the present case, the most severe punishment five years is prescribed for the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. If the punishment is more than three years, there is no limitation as per Section 468 (2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners’ counsel has relied upon number of decisions on the point of limitation and the said decisions relied upon by the petitioners’ counsel are not relevant in the present circumstances of the case. The only decision that is to be considered is rendered in ASHOK ANARAJ JAIN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[1]. Wherein the Single Judge of Karnataka High Court has held that cognizance of offence taken beyond period of one year from date of filing charge sheet, is beyond period of limitation, as such the accused entitled to be discharged. In the above said decision the period of limitation for the alleged offence is only one year and since the cognizance was taken beyond one year of filing of charge sheet, the learned Judge has observed that the said taking of cognizance is barred by limitation. In the present case as already discussed above, there is no period of limitation prescribed for the offence alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, even if the cognizance was taken by the Court on 18.03.2003 and charge sheet was filed on 03.09.2001, it cannot be said that the taking cognizance of the offence is barred by limitation. The petitioners’ counsel has pleaded that the divorce has taken place on 14.02.1999, as such the complaint is not maintainable, but he has not submitted any argument with regard to the maintainability of the present complaint after obtaining of divorce by A.1 from the complainant. Moreover, the cause of action for filing the complaint took place prior to the said divorce. For the alleged offences committed by the accused prior to the obtaining of divorce by A.1, they are liable to be prosecuted. Apart from the above said submissions, the petitioners’ counsel has not raised any other grounds for quashing the proceedings. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings as prayed for. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRSAD, J 7th April, 2011 KSP [1] 1997 Crl.L.J. 1261