IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2774 of 2007 Between: Shaik Mohammed Ghouse and others. . .Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Public Prosecutor and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 2774 of 2007 ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused 1 to 4 (A-1 to A-4) for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.75 of 2006 of II town Police Station, Kadapa relating to the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 2) There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent is wife of the 1st petitioner/A-1. A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. A-4 is younger brother of A-1. On the report given by the 2nd respondent, the police registered this crime. On a reading of contents of the report dated 23.08.2006, it is revealed that A-1 to A-4 were harassing the 2nd respondent for additional dowry and that A-4 is harassing her personally taking advantage of A-1 being out of India on his employment. 3) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that A-1 gave divorce to the 2nd respondent by way of Talak notice dated 30.06.2006 got issued by him through his Advocate-cum-agent and that A-1 also sent cheque for Rs.3,525/- to the 2nd respondent towards return of value of Jahez articles and therefore, this report was given by the 2nd respondent to the police with a view to extract money from the accused by giving this false report. 4) The matter is still under investigation by the police. The police did not come to any final conclusion and did not file final report before the Magistrate in this crime. So, it is open to the petitioners to approach the police with their version of giving divorce by way of pronouncement of Talak to the 2nd respondent and impress upon the police about the alleged falsity of contents of the report. 5) On the other hand, it is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that the alleged Talak notice dated 30.06.2006 is neither legal nor valid and that there was no pronouncement of Talak in fact and that Talak to be valid, should have been pronounced in the presence of the wife and also two elders of the same community. All these matters will be considered by the investigating officer during investigation in case the petitioners approach him/her and produce entire material. 6) Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that there was valid Talak between A-1 and the 2nd respondent, I am sure that it is not going to exonerate A-1 to A-4 from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in case the allegations in the F.I.R. are true. As the matter now stands, there is only report given by the 2nd respondent before the police and it contains legal ingredients attracting the offences for which the police have registered the crime. Therefore, this Court at this stage cannot interfere in the investigation and cannot quash the F.I.R. It is for the police to investigate into the offence having regard to all versions of both the parties and to come to a conclusion and file final report before the Magistrate. 7) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 20, 2009 KSH