IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.840 OF 2009 Between: Mir Shoukat Ali & 2 others … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.840 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 3/A2 to A4 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 406, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.243 of 2008 of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. Private complaint filed by the second respondent was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There is no dispute about marriage between the second respondent and A1. A1 is not a petitioner herein. A2 and A3 are parents and A4 is married sister of A1. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that marriage between the second respondent and A1 was dissolved by divorce on 23.05.2008 and that government Qazi issued divorce certificate to that effect and that therefore, this case which is primarily under Section 498A I.P.C. cannot be entertained. Subsequent divorce between the parties will not absolve the accused from the alleged acts committed by the accused prior to grant of divorce. In this case, the second respondent disputed even the factum of giving divorce by triple talaq. She contends that only single talaq was intimated and not triple talaq. It is a matter to be decided by the appropriate Court and not by this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. All the events alleged in the private complaint are prior to the alleged divorce. Mere harassment by way of termination of pregnancy by giving wrong medicines or by treating the second respondent as a servant maid, etc., cannot attract provisions of Section 498A I.P.C., unless the said harassment resulted in commission of suicide by the victim or the said harassment is coupled with demand for dowry. It is alleged by the second respondent that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.50,000/-, gold of 15 tolas, motor bike, furniture and other jehaz articles were given to A1 to A3. No amount was paid and no article was given to A4 at the time of marriage between the second respondent and A1. It is alleged that all the accused demanded for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and began harassing the second respondent and she was being threatened that A1 would go for another marriage and would divorce the second respondent in case the demand was not met with. 4. A4 is a married sister of A1. She has been living with her husband separately and she is not residing along with A1 to A3. Even as per complaint, A4 is resident of Flat No.205 and A1 to A3 are residents of Flat No.304. Even if dowry is paid or additional dowry is paid, A4 is not the beneficiary. There cannot be any benefit for A4 if the second respondent is harassed. This Court is of the opinion that A4 is unnecessarily impleaded as accused person and she was roped into the affair for no fault of her. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. Insofar as the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3 are concerned, they being parents of A1 cannot plead in this petition that false case was foisted against them. It is a matter to be decided by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.243 of 2008 of Women Police Station, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, insofar as the third petitioner/A4 is concerned; and the criminal petition is partly dismissed in respect of the petitioners 1 and 2/A2 and A3. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 06, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.840 OF 2009 August 06, 2010 KL