HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1484 OF 2007 Date: 09.02.2010 Between: Syed Saifuddin ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1484 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.33 of 2006 of Women police station, Adilabad relating to offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no dispute about marriage between the accused and the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent. Their marriage took place on 19.05.2002. Previously, there was a case in C.C.No.7 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adilabad against the petitioner and other relations of the petitioner. After trial, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C and passed sentence against the petitioner. As against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2005 before the Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The Sessions Judge, Adilabad by judgment dated 26.07.2006 allowed the appeal acquitting the petitioner also. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed M.C.No.140 of 2005 before the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said petition in M.C.No.140 of 2005 was returned by the Additional Family Court for presentation in proper Court. While so, the 2nd respondent filed private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adilabad against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 I.P.C and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This case relates to return of Jahez articles and other articles numbering 60. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, dowry (Jode-ke-rakham) of Rs.70,000/- was given to the accused and that on 18.05.2002 Hero Honda Motor cycle was given to the accused and that on 19.05.2002 other articles worth Rs.3,50,000/- listed in the complaint were given. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C; and there upon the Women police, Adilabad registered the same as case in Crime No.33 of 2006 and issued F.I.R. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in the previous case, the Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2005 considered all these aspects and negatived contention of the 2nd respondent and that therefore, question of trying the petitioner/accused on similar facts will not arise. He placed reliance on Section 300 Cr.P.C in this regard. The bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C arises only for trial of a case and not for investigation of a case. In case, the petitioner feels that he cannot be tried again on the same set of facts, it is for the petitioner to approach the police and produce all the material to the police, so that the police will consider and file final report after investigation taking view point of the petitioner also. On a perusal of judgment of the Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2005, it is evident that subject matter of the Criminal Appeal was offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C only and nothing more. Even if the Sessions Judge, Adilabad considered history of the case leading to offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C and if any observations were made by the Judge with regard to previous history leading to the offence, it is not a discussion on subject matter of that appeal. There was no offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C involved in that appeal. Ingredients for a case falling under Section 405 I.P.C are entirely different from ingredients required for proving the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. Therefore, in any event, Section 300 Cr.P.C is no bar for the 2nd respondent from taking steps and making allegations attracting offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C and other allied offences. In that view of the matter, I see absolutely no legal or valid grounds for quashing F.I.R in this case. In the result, the petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:09.02.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1484 OF 2007 Date: 09.02.2010 Gk.