HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3754 of 2008 O R D E R: The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. Notice was issued to her. Notice was however, not served upon the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notice was sent to the address of the 2nd respondent as shown in the complaint and that the notice was however, returned without service. This petition is therefore, disposed of without hearing the 2nd respondent and assuming that the 2nd respondent has no interest in the matter. 2. The petition is by A-8, A-9 and A12 in Cr.No.158 of 1998 on the file of the Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad. The complaint was laid by the 2nd respondent making allegations against 12 accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.498-A and 406 IPC as well as u/Secs.4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR was lodged on 29.8.1998. The three accused, who laid the present petition are distant relatives of the defacato complainant/2nd respondent. 3. A-1 is /was the husband of the defacto complainant. A-7 is the sister of A-1. A-8, who is the first of the three petitioners is the wife of A-7. In other words, he is the brother-in-law of A-1. A-9, who is the 2nd petitioner in this petition was described to be the paternal cousin of 1st accused. A-11 is the paternal uncle of A-1. A-12 is his wife. The petitioners thus are not the immediate relatives of A-1 like sisters, brother or the mother. While A-8 is the husband of the sister of A-1, A9 and A11 are even more distant relatives. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the petitioners are not the immediate relatives of A-1 and admittedly are not the residents of the same house of A-1, the defacto complainant should make out concrete and specific allegations against the petitioners before seeking cognizance of the case against the petitioners. His contention is that omnibus allegations were made against the petitioners by the defacto complainant without attributing any specific overtacts. The complicity of the petitioners in the offences indeed has been alleged by the complaint. However, as rightly submitted by Sri P.Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, no specific overacts is attributed against any of the three petitioners. 5. As already pointed out, the complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant on 29.8.1998. This petition was laid in the year 2008. There is a delay of 10 years in filing the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners however, explained that the petitioners were totally unaware about the filing of the complaint till the petitioners received notice from the XIII Adld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the year 2008. 6. It would appear that a charge sheet was filed in this case after more than three years from the date of the complaint. The charge sheet was thus laid beyond three years from the date of commission of the offence. The defacto complainant consequently filed a petition u/Sec.473 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay in filing the compliant. The petitioners herein received notice in the petition u/Sec.473 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have come to know about the complaint only after receipt of notice u/Sec.473 Cr.P.C. and that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners in seeing the redressal of the court expeditiously. In view of the petitioners receiving notice u/Sec.473 Cr.P.C in the year 2008, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of not approaching the court expeditiously. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the deacto complainant in fact, obtained divorce by way of Qulanama and that the 2nd respondent/defacato complainant is prima-facie not entitled to lay a compliant against her husband or any of the relatives of her husband muchless against the petitioners herein. The English translation of the Qulanama shows that on 4.7.2002 an offer was made by the wife/defacto complainant to the husband for divorce. The offer was accepted according to the learned counsel for the petitioners and that the marriage consequently stood dissolved w.e.f. 4.7.2002. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the dissolution of the marriage between the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused the petition against the present petitioners are not maintainable. 8. However, the allegations relating to the present petition are of the year 1998 and prior thereto. I therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that qulanama would automatically close the legal relationship between the defacto complainant on the one side and the relatives of her husband on the other side. At the same time, where the petitioners are distant relatives of A-1 and where no specific overtacts are attributed against the petitioners, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint in so far as it relates to the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Added to it, the delay in filing the charge sheet has not been explained by the prosecution. 9. Consequently, the criminal petition is allowed. The complaint in Cr.No.158 of 1998 on the file of women police station, South Zone, Hyderabad, is quashed so far as the accused Nos. 8,9 and 12, who are petitioners herein are concerned. _______________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Mjl/*