IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4815 OF 2006 Between: 1. Smt. Sunkara Padmaja and another ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO :4815 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.5 and 6 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.346 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadepalligudem, relating to offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Marriage of the 2nd respondent with A1 took place on 10.5.1998. Due to certain differences and on ground of cruelty, the 2nd respondent gave report to Ganapavaram Police against her husband and relations of her husband. The police registered the report as case in Crime No.16 of 2001 for offence under Section 498-A IPC only and investigated into the same and filed charge sheet in the lower Court in C.C.No.185 of 2001 for offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Not satisfied with action of the police, the 2nd respondent filed private complaint before the lower Court alleging that the police should have filed charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC also. The Magistrate forwarded the private complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed another charge sheet by way of C.C.No.346 of 2006 in the lower Court against A1 to A6 for offence punishable under Section 406 IPC also. In this charge sheet, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram Police Station has clearly stated in last but one paragraph as follows: “It is prayed that the offence is one and the same offence against the same accused, for the same offence, and the matter is pending trial in C.C.No.185/01. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Magistrate may kindly club the same in C.C.No.185/01 under Section 210 Cr.P.C.” Thus, charge sheet in C.C.No.346 of 2006 is only continuation of earlier charge sheet in C.C.No.185 o 2001, even as per the investigation officer and the prosecution. Previously, the petitioners 1 and 2 who are A4 and A5 in C.C.No.185 of 2001 filed Crl.P.No.1628 of 2003 in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.185 of 2001 of the lower Court. This Court by order dated 19.4.2006 in Crl.P.No.1628 of 2003 allowed the petition quashing proceedings in C.C.No.185 of 2001 insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as continuation of previous proceedings, the present charge sheet in C.C.No.346 of 2006 is also liable to be quashed in this petition. As per allegations in the charge sheet, the victim/2nd respondent paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’ to A1 to A6 in the presence of witnesses and that A1 to A6 promised to return the amount with improvements to the 2nd respondent. It is also alleged that ‘Adapaduchu lanchanam’ of Rs.10,000/- was paid to A5 and that the 2nd respondent was also having gold jewels. It is complaint of the 2nd respondent that she is entitled to get back all the said amounts and jewellery and that A1 to A6 have not returned the same. Insofar as ‘Adapaduchu lanchanam’ of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, it is only a customary gift given to sister of the husband at the time of marriage. It is only a gift and not an entrustment. It is not liable to be returned in any event. Insofar as ‘pasupu kumkuma’ amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and jewellery are concerned, the question of entrusting the same to A5 who is married sister of A1 or to A6 who is husband of A5 and who were living separately at Hyderabad may not arise at all. For the said reason, this Court previously quashed proceedings in C.C.No.185 of 2001 insofar as the petitioners are concerned. For the same reasons, the present petition is also liable to be allowed. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.346 of 2006 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadepalligudem insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/A5 and A6 are concerned. _________________________________ Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu Date: 31st December, 2009 Nn. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO :4815 OF 2006 31.12.2009