THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6008 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 108 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. It is the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted, process of law is being abused only to tarnish the image and to harass them and the allegations made in the complaint are baseless, which are false and does not show or implicate the petitioners for committing any offence. It is further urged that the petitioners are no way connected with the family of the defacto complainant or accused. All of them are working at far of places except Accused No.2 and 5 who stays at Epurupalem village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasham District. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings. Based on the complaint dated 16.11.2007 lodged by the defacto complainant U. Vijayalakshmi, the police Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada registered a case in Crime No. 573 of 2007 under Section 498-A I.P.C. Briefly, the facts in the alleged complaint reads as follows: The defacto complainant and accused No.1 are husband and wife and they were residing at Vijayawada along with their children. The marriage between the defacto complainant and the accused No.1 was performed on 16.5.1984 and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs were given to accused No.1 as dowry in addition to gifting one acre of land, 10 sovereigns of gold. The defacto complainant also gave Rs. 1,25,000/- to accused No.1 to got the land registered in her favour. Accused No.1 is working in the Southern Central Railway in the Signal Department in Vijayawada Division. During the wed lock they were blessed with two children and lived happily for some time. In the year 1990, the defacto complaint was got appointment in Southern Railway, Madras Division as Typist. On account of the same, she joined the post there. From the year 1992, accused No.1 started spending his salary for his voices in particular for drinking and used to demand the salary of the defacto complainant and also used to harass her to bring more money and on two occasions she brought Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- from her parents and given the same to accused No.1. The defcto complainant also secured Rs. 2,50,000/- from her parents for purchasing a plot. On receiving such amounts, accused No.1 again demanded to bring more money from her parents and has been physically and mentally harassing her for more money. The defacto complainant now maintaining herself with her salary and also educating the children. On 24.12.2005, the defacto complainant found electricity bill in the pocket of her husband, when enquired about this, instead of giving reply accused No.1 beat black and blue and never answered, then she made discreet enquiries about the same and found that her husband is having illicit contacts with one Kamalamma and when questioned about the said woman, accused No.1 threatened her, that he wanted to leave Kamalamma, the land standing in her name should be transferred, otherwise he will not leave her. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged a report before the Machavaram P.S. on 4.1.2006 for the offence under Section 498- A I.P.C. and adultery. Since no action has been taken on the said complaint, the accused No.1 further intensified his harassment and continued his illicit relationship with the said Kamalamma and when the remaining accused viz. U. Venkata Swamy, U. Satyam Babu, U. Prabhudas and U. Chilakamma have developed grudge on her and also putting mental tension and harassment, a report was lodged and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 108 of 2008. The defacto complainant specifically stated the harassment of the accused in particular her husband accused No.1. Admittedly, these petitioners are closely related to each other. The police filed charge sheet after due enquiry. The counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision reported in BHAJANLAL Vs. STATE[1] and mainly urged that the petitioners had been falsely implicated in this case. The complaint against the petitioners was totally without any basis or foundation. Even if at all the allegations incorporated in the complaint were taken to be true, even otherwise, no offence could be made out against them, as the petitioners are not residents of the place, where accused No.1 resided. A perusal of the facts in the aforesaid decision are entirely different to the facts and circumstances in the instant case on hand. In the present case on hand, it is the specific assertions made by the defacto complainant that her husband accused No.1 used to harass her by one pretext or other by demanding money. It is also her further assertion that her husband is habituated to alcohol and used to spend his earnings without looking after her welfare and the children. It is also the clear assertion that the family members arrayed as petitioners are also joined with accused No.1 in harassing her. The truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint will be decided in due course of trial. Having found prima facie material against the petitioners, the Court took the cognizance of the matter. Therefore, any finding touching the subject matter as on date is premature. Therefore, the present petition is premature and I see no grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 108 of 2008 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ 7.4.2011 CHV [1] AIR 1951 ALL. 504