HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 684 of 2008 ORDER: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by Mummudi Rambabu @ Rama Rao @ Venkata Ramarao, who is A-1 in CC No. 213 of 2006 on the file of the III Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, to quash the proceedings therein, so far as he is concerned. 2. The Petitioner herein is A-1 in CC No. 213 of 2006. The 1st respondent M.Yashoda filed a report before the Station House Officer, I Town Law & Order Police Station, Kakinada, on 08-06-2006 alleging that her marriage with the petitioner herein, was performed on 16-08-1998 in Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devasthanam, Annavaram as per caste customs and at the time of marriage, her mother and brother gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and his family members towards dowry and Rs.10,000/- towards Adampaduchu Lanchanam as demanded by them. She joined with her husband- Petitioner herein and lead marital life for some time. It is further averred in the report that the petitioner along with A-2 and A-3, who are brother- in-law and sister of A-1, harassed her to bring additional dowry so as to enable him to run video studio. When she expressed her inability to fulfill their demands, they beat her. She being vexed with the behaviour of the petitioner and his brother-in-law and sister (A-2 and A3) left the marital home. At the instance of the petitioner and his parents, she joined with the petitioner for leading marital life. Even then the petitioner did not change his attitude and continued to harass her. Basing on the said report, the Station House Officer, I Town Law & Order Police Station, Kakinada, registered a case in Cr.No. 77 of 2006 and issued F.I.R. After due investigation, LW-9, Md.Shariff, Addl. Sub Inspector of Police, I Town L & O P.S, laid charge sheet in the Court of the III Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kakinada. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on of file as CC No. 213 of 2006. Hence this petition. 3. Notice sent to the 1st respondent - defacto complainant returned unserved with an endorsement of ‘Refused’. Therefore, it is deemed that service of notice on 1st respondent has been affected. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 1st respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has not been consummated and therefore, the question of their living together does not arise. A further submission has been made that the petitioner had filed OP No.61 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram for annulment of marriage held on 16-08-1998 and the said OP came to be allowed on 24-10-2003. Learned Counsel also would contend that a specific allegation has been made in OP No. 61 of 2003 that the defacto complainant herein is unfit for leading marital life and therefore, there has been no consummation of marriage. Learned counsel placed on record the copy of the petition in OP No. 61 of 2003. Much reliance has been laid on para No.4 of the petition which reads as under: “4. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was celebrated on 16-08-1998 at 8.28 p.m. at Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamivari Devasthanam, Annavaram by the elders as per Hindu Rites and caste custom. There after consummation of the marriage was arranged on 18-8-98 in the house of Sri Guruju Bhaskara Rao, Retired Sub-Registrar, who is the 2nd brother- in-law of the petitioner herein. On the very first night the respondent herein utterly expressed her unwillingness to lead happy married life with the petitioner and also for consummation on the first night itself i.e, on 18-8-98 and expressed intention to live separately and vehemently expressed disinterest to consummate the marriage. On the next day, the petitioner was informed by the brothers of the respondent to come to their house at Kakinada and took away the petitioner and respondent along with them to arrange consummation of the marriage. But they did not arrange for the same and at the same time petitioner and the respondent were asked to sleep in different rooms on 19-8-98.” 6. As per the averment in OP, the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has not been consummated and they never lived together as wife and husband. The competent court granted annulled of marriage on 24.10.2003. The defacto complainant presented the report on 8-6-2006 nearly three years of annulment of marriage. 7. It is also trite to note that A-2 and A-3 approached this court for quashing the proceedings against them in CC No. 213 of 2006 on the file of the III Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakina by filing Crl.P.No. 4309 of 2007. The said petition came to be allowed on 8-10-2007. Such is the situation, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner –A1 in CC No. 213 of 2006 on the file of the court of the III Addl.Judicial Fist Class Magistrate, Kakinada. ____________ 22-07-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 684 of 2008 Dated: 22-07-2010 Mjl/*