THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8726 of 2008 Date:02nd November, 2011 Between: 1. Boga Limbadri & Ors. ..... Petitioners/A1 to A5 AND 1) The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8726 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in Crime No.372 of 2008 of Bodhan Police Station, Nizamabad District, to quash the proceeding therein. 2. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner herein. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents, 4th petitioner is the sister and 5th petitioner is the brother-in-law of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 28.04.2008 at Bodhan as per Hindu rites and customs. According to the 2nd respondent, her parents paid dowry of Rs.2,50,000/- and presented household articles worth of Rs.10,000/-; clothes worth of Rs.10,000/- and 14 tolas of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. The petitioners allegedly demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Ultimately, they necked her out from the matrimonial home after snatching her gold ornaments on 08.06.2008. She claims to have approached the petitioners on 30.09.2008 and requested for return of the dowry amount, gold ornaments and other household articles. Since they did not oblige her request, she issued a notice, dated 03.10.2008. Thereafter, she presented a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Bodhan P.S. Thereupon, the S.H.O., Bodhan P.S., registered a case in Crime No.372 of 2008 and issued FIR. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the accused in Crime No.372 of 2008, with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on 30.12.2008. The 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant earlier presented a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, on 29.08.2008 and the said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Office, Bodhan P.S., and thereupon, the Station House Officer, Bodhan P.S., registered a case in Crime No.289 of 2008. The police after due investigation in the said crime filed charge-sheet only against the petitioners 1 to 3 while deleting the petitioners 4 and 5 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. A further submission has been made that presenting the second complaint by the 2nd respondent on the same set of allegations amounts to abuse of process of law. The learned counsel took me to the complaint averments in Crime No.289 of 2008 and the complaint averments in Crime No.372 of 2008. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant submits that the 2nd respondent demanded the petitioners for return of the dowry amount, gold ornaments and other household articles on 30.09.2008 and as they failed to comply her demand, she filed a fresh complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan and the said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Bodhan P.S. In a way, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent is that a fresh cause of action has arisen on 30.09.2008 for instituting the complaint. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. I have gone through the averments of the complaints filed by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, on 29.08.2008 and also on 12.11.2008. Basing on the first complaint, dated 29.08.2008, the police registered the case and after due investigation filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners 1 to 3 while deleting the petitioners 4 and 5. In the second complaint except including two paras. i.e. paras. 4 and 5, the other allegations are in same verbatim. The paras.4 and 5 included in the second complaint are as follows: “4. That on 30.092008 the complainant approached the accused Nos.1 to 5 and requested accused Nos.1 to 5 to return the dowry amount, gold ornaments and other household articles, which given in marriage which mentioned in the list (which list enclosed herewith the complainant) but accused Nos.1 to 5 refused to return the same. 5. That on 3.10.2008 the complainant sent legal notice to the accused Nos.1 to 5 requested them to return the dowry amount, gold ornaments and other house hold articles, which the accused Nos.1 to 5 received the notice and given reply, simply denied the contents of the notice and mentioned that the accused No.1 ready to allow the complainant and join her society.” 8. It is a matter of record that the 2nd respondent filed earlier complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, on 29.08.2008 and police registered a case in Crime No.289 of 2008 on 03.09.2008. Such is the situation, it is highly improbable that the 2nd respondent has gone to the house of the petitioners on 30.09.2008 and demanded them for return of her dowry amount, gold ornaments and other household articles. In the given facts and circumstances, filing second complaint on the same set of facts amounts to abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceeding in Crime No.372 of 2008 of Bodhan Police Station, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners herein. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.8726 of 2008 Date:02nd November, 2011