THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.1608 of 2009 18th March, 2010 Between :- C.S.Md.Yousuf & others .. Petitioners And Smt.Syed Darbar Haseena And another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.1608 of 2009 ORDER:- Heard the Counsel. 2. The Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.12/2009 on the file of II-Town Police Station, Kuddapah District. 3. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is the natural son of 2nd and 3rd petitioners and was married to the defacto-complainant. It is also stated that the 4th petitioner is the natural sister of the 1st petitioner and 5th petitioner is his brother-in-law. Further it is stated that the 1st petitioner’s marriage with 1st respondent took place on 9-11-2005 at Muslim Function Hall, Kuddapah, in accordance with Muslim Marriage Rites and Rituals. Further it is stated that the defacto-complainant had to join the 1st petitioner at his place of stay in Dubai after her marriage, resultantly she joined him at Dubai after a month of her marriage, she sustained a fracture there due to an accidental slip on slippery floor, The 1st petitioner attended her with due care and love got her treated there and it was for six long months that the 1st petitioner attended her, without even appointing an attendant, defacto-complainant sustained fracture on 9-2-2006, later she was operated on 12-2-2006 and she was discharge from hospital on 18-2-2006. This fact was intimated to her parents on the very same day and her mother attended her only on 1-3-2006. Later, the defacto-complainant became pregnant and for the sake of rituals amongst the family, she had to travel to India for conception, though the 1st petitioner was overly occupied with work, he accompanied her as well her mother to India, by haphazardly arranging for tickets etc., dropped them at home. After returning to India, she gave birth to a baby girl on 15-3-2007 and it was christened as “Shazia”, later she joined the company of the 1st petitioner at Dubai on 30-5-2007 and stayed there for a period of six months. 4. Further it is stated that the 1st petitioner came to India on 12- 12-2007 for Bakrid festival, celebrated the festival and left to Dubai on 23-12-2007 and thereafter during their stay in Dubai, the 1st petitioner noticed that the defacto-complainant became pregnant for the 2nd time. This time did the defacto-complainant exposed her perfect silhouette she wanted the 1st petitioner to buy her a diamond necklace worth Rs.30,00,000/- there at Dubai, the 1st petitioner expressed his inability. Then it has become usual for her to pick up quarrels with the 1st petitioner, odd times at night did she leave the house leaving an year old child to its fate, one instance that the defacto-complainant left the kid in a supermarket and returned after 3 hours, the 1st petitioner made a complaint to police at Dubai, she coolly came after police started to search her and informed them that she went to make some purchases, police have admonished her and left for her indifferent behaviour. She was never subjected to any harassment, in fact, she did subject the petitioners to extreme cruelty and suffering, she cut her hand and threatened the 1st petitioner that she will complaint to police and he would loose his job if he not to buy her a necklace. 5. It is further stated that all the allegations leveled against the petitioners are baseless and are invented only for the purpose of implicating them for an unlawful gain. It is also stated that the defacto- complainant willfully left 1st petitioner’s company, for not buying her a necklace worth of Rs.30,m00,000/-. In fact after giving birth to 2nd daughter, her harassment became unbearable. The defacto- complainant comes from a very poor family. Apart from what all is given to her in kind after returning to India on 28-2-2008 she carried 500 gms., of gold along with her for which the 1st petitioner had every account and proof, then she demanded for a settlement during her stay in Dubai, she extorted 1st petitioner and made him to deposit Rs.8,50,000/- in her mother’s account in India, since she had no bank account in India. 6. Further it is stated that she withdraw all that money and started staying along with her parents and when petitioners 2 to 5 have come to know about it and questioned her, she made the present complaint. It is also stated that the 4th and 5th per are staying separately and they have got nothing to do with the present case, only in order to swindle away the hard earned money of the 1st petitioner, the present case is invented. It is also stated that the 1st petitioner has every proof and account to establish that the money was paid to the defacto- complainant and it is only for the sake of that money that the present complaint was foisted against him and other petitioners. 7. It is also averred that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are senile and suffering with several geriatric ailments. Presently 3rd petitioner is staying along with 1st petitioner in Dubai, the reasoning given by the complainant in her complaint is baseless when in concerned with 2nd and 3rd petitioners, the docket sheet of complaint goes to show that it was returned twice for proper proofs. The very same medical reports which go to show that the defacto-complainant suffered a fracture in Dubai forms base for her complaint and such fracture was never suffered due to any physical assault. It is also stated that the house of which the defacto-complainant refers to be given to 1st petitioner was purchased by the 2nd petitioner for a valuable consideration and no reason that after effecting conveyance some time in the year 2005 can the defacto-complainant claim that the property was given in dowry or under any head which suits her convenience. 8. Further it is averred that the petitioners have literally beseeched the defacto-complainant not to leave the 1st petitioner and live with him and let live the other petitioners in peace. Being instigated by the persons behind the smoke screen, she is doing all this to access an Aceldama. She left the 1st petitioner’s company without any reason. Now she had to face the wrath of society in order to shield her guilt she levels the present allegations on petitioners it is a well-known fact that “the horse can be taken to pond but can’t be made to drink water” in the same fashin reunion of a couple parted with no reasons cannot be under threat or compulsion. As a matter of fact, 1st petitioner along with other petitioners strenuously persuaded the defacto-complainant and her parents to join the company of the 1st petitioner but all their efforts went in vain. This is a clear-cut game plan hatched by the defacto-complainant and her parents in order to pressurize the 1st petitioner and his parents of putting an end to his relationship with defacto-complainant and not returning the money as discussed above. It is also stated that though the petitioners stand a very strong case, trying this issue would certainly the vexatious and would drag the petitioners into concomitant asperities for no fault. Several grounds also had been specified in the Criminal Petition. 9. Elaborate submissions had been made pointing out the improbabilities. The aspect of improbability predominantly being a question of fact, without adducing evidence, these aspects cannot be gone into at this stage. Liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all these grounds, raised in the present Criminal Petition, at the appropriate stage. 10. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 18th March, 2010 smr