THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6386 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6398 of 2009 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6386 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Ahmed Kaleem Uddin … Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.6398 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Samreen Hussain … Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P. & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6386 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6398 of 2009 ORDER: These two petitions are filed by A1 and A6 respectively in CC.No.174 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. A1 is husband of the 2nd respondent- de facto complainant. A6 is married sister of A1. Though A6 is shown to be a resident of Karimnagar in the charge sheet, the petitioner’s counsel states that she is now out of the country. A2 to A5 and A7 are other family members and relations of A1. They are not parties herein. Marriage of A1 with the 2nd respondent took place on 29.05.1998. Both of them went to Dammam and worked there. They have three female children. It is stated that subsequently, the 2nd respondent became educated and became a Doctor completing medicine course. Since December 2004, there are disputes between A1 and the 2nd respondent, when the 2nd respondent was sent back to India. It is alleged that both at Dammam as well as at Hyderabad, A1 was harassing the 2nd respondent and beating her to bring more dowry and presents from her parents and that at the time of marriage, her parents presented Prompt dower of Rs.75,000/- and also gave 10 tolas of gold and other costly Jahez articles. The 2nd respondent instituted the case alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A7. Insofar as A6 is concerned, there is no specific allegation of she participating in the alleged harassment of the 2nd respondent or by way of entrusting gold or other valuables to her or demanding for additional dowry etc. The only allegation against A6 is that along with other family members, A6 was also instigating A1 by phone to harass the 2nd respondent. This general and vague allegation cannot allow the 2nd respondent to implead A6 in this case for prosecuting her. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A1 was divorced by the 2nd respondent by filing O.P.No.185 of 2009 in Family Court, Hyderabad. That subsequent fact will not absolve A1 of his criminal liability if any, for the allegations made against him in the present case. The delay in filing the case by the 2nd respondent, cannot be a ground for quashing the case against A1. It is a matter for appreciation of evidence to be let in by both the parties. 3. 6386 of 2009: In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 4. 6398 of 2009: In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.174 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad insofar as the petitioner/A6 is concerned. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 07.04.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6386 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6398 of 2009 DATED: 07.04.2011 ysk